Skip to content


In Re: an Advocate - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All91
AppellantIn Re: an Advocate
Excerpt:
.....board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is..........and now applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this high court. his ground is that the benares state chief court is almost equivalent to a high court.2. the bar council has raised an objection on the ground that the chief court of the benares state is not a high court and mr. a cannot be treated as having practised in any high court and is therefore not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of this high court.3. in our opinion the objection raised is sound. under bar council rule 1 an applicant must either have practised in one or more of the courts subordinate to this high court for a period of not less than one year or undergone training in the chambers of a senior member whose name appears on a list approved by this high court or he must be an advocate of any other 'high court'.....
Judgment:

1. Mr. A who was enrolled as a pleader in the Allahabad District Court for the year 1923 has been practising since then in the Courts of the Benares State and now applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. His ground is that the Benares State Chief Court is almost equivalent to a High Court.

2. The Bar Council has raised an objection on the ground that the Chief Court of the Benares State is not a High Court and Mr. A cannot be treated as having practised in any High Court and is therefore not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court.

3. In our opinion the objection raised is sound. Under Bar Council Rule 1 an applicant must either have practised in one or more of the Courts subordinate to this High Court for a period of not less than one year or undergone training in the chambers of a senior member whose name appears on a list approved by this High Court or he must be an advocate of any other 'High Court' of not less than two years standing. It is quite clear that Mr. Anandi Prasad has not been practising in any Court subordinate to this High Court nor has he undergone the requisite training. It is equally clear that the Benares State Chief Court cannot be recognized as a Chartered High Court which is referred to in the rules and his practice in such Court cannot be counted. The application is accordingly rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //