SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(AP) 42

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
In re Mannava Venkata Rao
Versus
.
Civil Misc. Petn. No. 502 of 1957
Decided On : 18-02-1957

Advocates:
R. Rajeswara Rao, for Petitioner; Govt. Pleader (M Seshachalapathi), for Advocate-General (D Narasaraju) for the State.

An advocate enrolled in a High Court is entitled to exemption from stamp duty on enrolment in another High Court if the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Bar Councils Act are applicable to both High Courts and the advocate was recognized as an advocate of the second High Court under the States Reorganisation Act.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - EXEMPTION - ADVOCATE ENROLLED IN MYSORE HIGH COURT - RECOGNITION AS ADVOCATE OF MYSORE PART A STATE UNDER STATES REORGANISATION ACT - ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTION FROM STAMP DUTY ON ENROLMENT IN ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an advocate enrolled in the Mysore High Court, sought to be enrolled as an advocate in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He claimed exemption from paying stamp duty on his enrolment, arguing that he was an advocate of a High Court when he had previously been enrolled in a High Court, as per the exemption provided under Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption from stamp duty on his enrolment in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court reasoned that under Section 53 of the States Reorganisation Act, the petitioner was recognized as an advocate of the present High Court of Mysore State, and that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Bar Councils Act were applicable to that State.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, an advocate enrolled in the Mysore High Court, was entitled to exemption from stamp duty on his enrolment in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption because he was an advocate of a High Court when he had previously been enrolled in a High Court, as per the exemption provided under Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act. The court found that the petitioner was recognized as an advocate of the present High Court of Mysore State under Section 53 of the States Reorganisation Act, and that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Bar Councils Act were applicable to that State.

Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner's enrolment in the Andhra Pradesh High Court without payment of stamp duty.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is an application by Mr. Venkata Rao, an Advocate of the Mysore High Court, for being enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The question raised is whether the petitioner is exempted from paying stamp duty on his enrolment.

2. In this case, we have not had the advantage of the assistance of the Advocate-General. It is unfortunate that the present Advocate-General has been ill for a considerable time, and we understand that he has taken leave. But no advocate has yet been appointed to act as Advocate-General of this State. Article 165 of the Constitution of India says :

(1) The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.

It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that there shall be an Advocate-General for every State and that he has to discharge not only the duties entrusted to him but also the duties conferred on him under various statutes. The following are some of the functions of the Advocate-General :

(a) to advise the State Government on any legal problem which may be referred to him;

(b) to represent the State in Civil and Criminal matters of special importance;

(c) to enter a nolle prosequi or to grant a fiat for review of verdict in criminal cases tried by the High Court :

(d) to protect public rights in such matters as public charities and public nuisances;

(e) to take action in contempt proceedings and to appear in cases where professional misconduct of the advocates is involved and others;

(f) he is the official head of the Bar and the President of the Bar Council.

Apart from the fact that the interests of the Government suffer, this High Court is also deprived of his assistance. That apart, there is no Advocate-General to discharge the statutory duties conferred on him in public interests. It is, therefore, hoped that some competent gentleman of the Bar would be appointed to act as Advocate-General till such time as the present incumbent recovers from his illness. This is not intended to be an aspersion on Sri Seshachalapathi, who represented him in this case. Indeed we are grateful to him for the assistance rendered by him in this case.

3. The material facts necessary for deciding the question raised may be briefly stated. Mr. Venkata Rao was enrolled as an advocate of the Mysore High Court on 18-11-1954, when the Mysore State was a Part B State. When he was enrolled, the Indian Stamp Act did not apply to that State and he paid stamp duty of Rs. 300 under the Mysore Stamp Act. Under the States Reorganisation Act 1956. Mysore Part B State was abolished and a new Mysore Part A State was constituted and, under S. 53 of that Act, the petitioner was recognised as an advocate of that High Court and his name was entered in the roll of advocates of that High Court. Now he applies to be enrolled as an advocate of the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh.

4. At the outset, it will be convenient to read the relevant provisions of the Indian Bar Councils Act, the States Reorganisation Act and the Indian Stamp Act.

"The Indian Bar Councils Act and the Rules

framed thereunder

Section 8. - (1) No person shall be entitled as of right to practise in any High Court unless his name is entered in the roll of the advocates of the High Court maintained under this Act.

(2) The High Court shall prepare and maintain a roll of advocates of the High Court in which shall be entered the names of :-

(a) all persons who were, as advocates vakils or pleaders entitled as of right to practise in the High Court immediately before the date on which this section com
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top