M M ABDUL KHADER ADVOCATE HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.M.ABDUL KHADER, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajamannar, C.J. -
(1.) The petitioner is an advocate of the Travancore-Cochin High Court. He seeks to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The only question in this application is whether he is liable to pay the stamp duty under item 25 of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras which runs as follows :
"Entry as an Advocate, Vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court under the Indian Bar Council Act, 1926, or in exercise of powers conferred on such Court by Letters Patent or by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1884--(a) in the case of an Advocate or vakil : Six hundred and twenty-five rupees in the case of an attorney : Three hundred and twenty-five rupees, eight annas." There is an exemption to this provision which runs as follows :
"Entry of an advocate, vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court, when he has previously been enrolled in a High Court." Item 25 of the Act as amended corresponds to item 30 of the main Act.
(2.) The petitioner contends that as he had been previously enrolled in the High Court of Travancore-Cochin, he is entitled to the benefit of the exemption. He relies upon the definition of "High Court" in the Constitution, Article 368(14), which would comprise the Travancore-Cochin High Court, and also to Rule 1(2), Madras Bar Councils Rules as amended in February 1951 in, accordance with the definition in Article 366(14) of the Constitution.
(3.) In our opinion,, this contention is founded on a fallacy. The right to the benefit of the exemption can only arise in cases where the original entry itself would be applicable. This fact carries with it the implication that the enrolment referred to in the exemption is an enrolment which is similar to the class of enrolments referred to in the main provision itself.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.