LexJETHA NAND versus THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
•
•
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
961
in the order for examination and/or for the pro-
duction of the documents. Manifestly, the order
oould be obtained on a petition which was requir-
ed to be verified by the official liquidator and
there had to be a formal hearing and only if a
prima facie case for hearing had been made out
the order could be made. U11der the Companies
(Court) Rules a different praetice, which approaches
the practice prevailing in the English Courts baa
been set up. The mere fact that under r. 195 of
the Calcutta High Court Rules under Act of 1913
the appellaut might have had a right of access
to the statement on which the order was founded
will not be an adequate ground for holding that the
earlier practice must continue to prevail. If the
appellant is not entitled to inspection of the state-
ment he would certainly, for the si;tme reason, not
be entitled to a copy of that statement.
On the view taken, this appeal must fa.ii and
is dismia8ed with cOBts.
Appwl dismissed.
JETHA NAND
v.
THE BON'BLE JUDGES OF 'l'HE PUN.JAB
IDGH COURT
(P. B. GAJENDRA.GADKAR, A. K. SARUR,
K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAB GUI'TA and
•
N. RAJAGCPA.LA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
AdlJOCIJU on tke R"ll of Bind High Oourt-Sind cta.ie& to
form part of India--If right w pra-Otiee in court. of India conti-
nue-India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Law•) Order, 1947,
•· 5--Phe Indian Bar 0ouMil8 Act, 1926 [38 of 1926], •· 14.
The appellant J who was enrolled as an advocate in the
Chief Court of Sind in May 1947 came to India at the end of
the year 1948 and practiced in the Courts at Delhi. The
Chief Justice of Punjab High Cour~ prohibited the ap~ellant
from practiciny u an advocate m the Courts of Delhi. At
JHI.
Satish Churan law
v.
H. K. Gang11fy
Shah J.
1P61
Dtcnntn 6 .
1961
Jetha Nand
y.
Tk Hon' hie Judges
of the Pun.jab
High Court
DasJ.
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962J SUPP.
.,..-
the time the appellant was enrolled he was an advocate for
the purposes of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, and so was
entitled as of right to practice in any mbordinate courts in
what then was British India.
The question was whether this right continued to exist·
aftrr Sind ceased to form a part of India.
Hel.d, that the Chief Court of Sind which was a High
Court for the purposes of Indian Bar Councils Act. 1926, upto
August 14, 1947, cea•ed to exist as a High Court for the
purposes of the Indiaµ Bar Councils Act, with effect from
August 15, 1947, bv virtue ofs. 5 of the India (Adaptation of
Existing Indian Law) Order, 1947. The necessary conse.
quence of this was that the Roll maintained by the Chief
Court of Sind was from August 15, 1947, no longer a roll
maintained by a High Court within the meaning of the Indian
Bar Councils Act, 1926, and any person whose name was
entered on the Roll of the Chief Court of Sind ceased to be an
advocate for the purposes of s. 14 of the Indian Bar Councils
Act, 1926, and therefore ceased to have the right under that
section to practice in courts of India.
In the present case even though the appe!lant had a
right on August 14, 1947, to practice in the courts subordinllte
to any High Court in India, such a right ceased to exist after
the India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947.
C:rvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 490 of 1860.
Appeal bv special leave from the judgment
and order dated October 6, 1958, of the Puniab
High Court in Civil Misc. No. 28of1958(File 'A').
Mohan Behari Lal, for the appellant.
N. 8. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the respon-
dent No. 1.
Radhe:y Lal Agarwal and V. N. 8dhi, for respon·
dent No. 2.
1961. December 5. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant, Jetha Nand
(Betab) was enrolled as an Advocate in the Chief
Court of Sind on Mav 14, 1947. He came awav
to India at the end of the year 1948 and practised
in the courts at Delhi. On October 8, 1956 an order
was passed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab High
Court prohibiting the appellant from practising as an
'
'
'-•
{l) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
963
'
Advocate in the courts at Delhi. On November 8,
1956 thA appellant presented an application to the
High Court in which he contended that by virtue
of his having been enrolled as an Advocate in the
Chief Court of Sind he was entitled to practice.in
all the subordinate courts within the territory of
India. This petition was however rejected by a
FullExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.