Skip to content


b, an Advocate of Benares Vs. Judges of the High Court at Allahabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All259
Appellant"b", an Advocate of Benares
RespondentJudges of the High Court at Allahabad
Excerpt:
- - we do not think that that case is of much good to us......of suspension may be kept in abeyance till he has had an opportunity to place his case before the privy council in order to obtain special leave to appeal. the second is that the amount of security may be returned to him to enable him to proceed to the privy council. on the first point the case of nanda kishore singh v. ram golam sahu (1913) 40 cal 955 has been cited. in that case however there was a difference of opinion and the opinion of the senior judge prevailed under section 36, letters patent, of the calcutta high court. we do not think that that case is of much good to us. we however do think that we have an inherent jurisdiction to pass such orders as the justice of the case may require. in this case the applicant was suspended for three months and fifteen days of that period.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application an behalf of B with two prayers. The first is that the order of suspension may be kept in abeyance till he has had an opportunity to place his case before the Privy Council in order to obtain special leave to appeal. The second is that the amount of security may be returned to him to enable him to proceed to the Privy Council. On the first point the case of Nanda Kishore Singh v. Ram Golam Sahu (1913) 40 Cal 955 has been cited. In that case however there was a difference of opinion and the opinion of the Senior Judge prevailed under Section 36, Letters Patent, of the Calcutta High Court. We do not think that that case is of much good to us. We however do think that we have an inherent jurisdiction to pass such orders as the justice of the case may require. In this case the applicant was suspended for three months and fifteen days of that period have already expired. Ordinarily it would take about three months' time within which the applicant can get an order of their Lordships of the Privy Council granting special leave to appeal, if he ever gets one. Within that period the suspension will have fully taken effect and the object of going to their Lordships of the Privy Council will be frustrated. In view of these circumstances we direct that the order of suspension be further held in abeyance for three months from this date. The applicant must proceed quickly and obtain such order as their Lordships of the Privy Council may be pleased to pass.

2. The amount of security, Rs. 4,000, may be returned to the petitioner's counsel as quickly as possible. If the applicant does not pay the Government Advocate's fee allowed to him as costs within a week, a sufficient amount of the security will be retained for payment of costs to the Government Advocate.


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