Skip to content


K.R. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. the President of the Vakils' Association, High Court (16.04.1914 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR39Mad128
AppellantK.R. Ramachandra Ayyar
RespondentThe President of the Vakils' Association, High Court
Cases ReferredIn Tetley v. Jai Shankar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
appeal to the privy council - power of the high court to give leave--letters patent (madras), cll. 10 and 39--disciplinary proceedings under clause 10--right to give leave to appeal to privy council. - .....relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this court in a similar case in the matter of krishnaswami iyer civil miscellaneous petitions nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision, in re an attorney i.l.r. (1914) cal. 734, that disciplinary proceedings under clause 10 of the letters patent are not appealable under clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the privy council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. this is also the view taken in g.s.d. v. government pleader (1908) i.l.r. 32 bom. 106. in tetley v. jai shankar i.l.r. (1878) all. 726 also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from allahabad, in re s.b. sarbadhicary.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this Court in a similar case In the matter of Krishnaswami Iyer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision, In re an Attorney I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 734, that disciplinary proceedings under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are not appealable under Clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. This is also the view taken in G.S.D. v. Government Pleader (1908) I.L.R. 32 Bom. 106. In Tetley v. Jai Shankar I.L.R. (1878) All. 726 also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from Allahabad, In re S.B. Sarbadhicary (1906) 34 I.A. 41 it appears that leave was granted by the Allahabad High Court, the reports show that special leave to appeal was obtained from their Lordships before the appeal was beard.

2. The application is dismissed.


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