Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Bar Council Of Rajasthan vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 31 October, 1975 cites

Sunil Kumar Sinha Ray vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 January, 1963

7. The Bar Council has, on the other hand, urged that as the function of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had been taken away in so far as the admission of revenue agents was concerned.the Board could not issue fresh certificates. It could issue certificates only in those cases in which a candidate had been admitted and for one reason or the other a certificate had not been issued to him before 1-12-61. The petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble the Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Sinha Ray v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 Cal 614 in which the effect of the repeal of Sections 6. 7, 8 and 9 of the Legal Practitioners Act (relating to 'Mukhtars') by Section 59(2) of the Act came up for consideration. It was claimed by the petitioners in that case that as they had prepared themselves for the mukhtarship examination and had paid the fees for appearance in the examination, they had acquired a vested right to admission in the examination and to qualify as 'Mukhtars' and, in the absence of any express provision of law taking away that vested right, the repeal effected by Section 50, Sub-section (2) could not affect their position by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The argument was however repelled by Mitter J. as fallacious. He held that the Legal Practitioners Act did not vest anybody, who had not already acquired the necessary qualifications, with any right. If the petitioners had appeared at the examination and qualified themselves as 'mukhtars', their contention would have been better founded. It was held that it was clear from the preamble to the Advocates Act and Section 50. Subsection (2) that the Legislature meant to do away with different categories of lawyers and was taking steps in that behalf by preventing the further admission and enrolment of 'mukhtars'. The issue of a certificate to a 'mukhtar' under the Legal Practitioners Act was covered by its Section 7 under which a person was to be entitled to a certificate as 'mukhtar' 'on his admission under Section 6'. To be admitted under Section 6, a person had to acquire the qualifications thereunder mentioned, and comply with the rules made by the High Court in that behalf. It was held that Sub-section (4) of Section 58 was designed to safeguard the rights of the persons who had already acquired the necessary qualifications mentioned in Section 6 and the persons who had become qualified as pleaders or 'mukhtars' but to whom no certificate had been issued. It could not apply to persons who had not acquired the necessary qualifications under Section 6. Bose C. J. was of the view that there could hardly be any room for doubt that the right to appear in the examination and the obligation to hold the 'mukhtars' examination were also extinct as a result of the repeal of Section 6. The effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act was that no new 'mukhtar' would be enrolled after the coming into force of the provision. Sub-section (4) did not have the effect of reviving wholly the provisions relating to admission and enrolment. Sub-section (4) aimed at reviving only the provisions relating to the actual grant or issue of certificate for the first time or renewal thereof, in a case where such certificate had not been for any reason granted, or issued, or where renewal of certificate already granted was necessary. We are in respectful agreement with that view.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Saxena And Ors. vs Chief Justice Of The High Court Of ... on 9 January, 1968

8. The next case relied on by the petitioner is Krishna Kumar Saxena v. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature for Allahabad, AIR 1969 All 112 where, again, the words 'issue and renewal' came to be interpreted in relation to pleaders. It was held that Section 58(4) provided for the continuance of the power of renewal of the existing certificates. Initially the power to issue a certificate was also continued to cater for those limited class of cases where the High Court had, prior to 1-12-61. made an order of admission of a person as a pleader but had not, for some reason, been able to issue the requisite certificate and that after 1-12-61 the High Court did not possess the power to admit or enrol fresh persons as pleaders.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1