# JETHA NAND v. THE BON'BLE JUDGES OF 'l'HE PUN.JAB

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 961
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jetha-nand-v-the-bon-ble-judges-of-l-he-pun-jab-2579
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

•
•
•
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
961
in the order for examination and/or for the production of the documents. Manifestly, the order
oould be obtained on a petition which was required 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 statement 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 continue-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 respondent 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.

## Text

•
•
•
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
961
in the order for examination and/or for the production of the documents. Manifestly, the order
oould be obtained on a petition which was required 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 statement 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 continue-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 respondent 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
Full Bench of the Punjab High Court on the view
• that the appellant could not after the partition of
India be considered to be an Advocate enrolled
under the provisions of the Bar Councils Act.
Against this order the present appeal has been
preferred on special leave granted by this Court.
The petitioner's case is that as imme\{iately
before the partition of India he was Antitled to
practise in any court in British India his right to
• practise in those Courts continued to exist even
when on partition of India, "British India" ceased
to exist .and provinces of India took their place ;
and when thereafter on the formation of the
Indian Union under the Constitution these provinces became States of India but those same courts
continued, his right to practise in those courta al~o
•
continued.
On behalf of the respondents it is contended
that the petitioner's right to practise in courts
which were not under the Chief Court of Sind
ceased as soon as Sind ceased to form part of
India and the Chief Court of Sind ceased to be a
High Court in India.
As the appellant bases his claim on e. 14 (1)
(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, it is necessary
to examine first the scheme of that Act. This Act
was passed to provide for the constitution and
incorporation of Bar Councils for certain courts in
British India, to confer powers and impose duties
on such Ear Councils and to amend the law relating to legal practitioners entitled to practise in
the courts. It extended to the whole of British
19111
J1thaNand
'(,
Tht Hon'b/1 Jur/111
of th• Punjab
High Oourt
DasJ.
1961
J 11/aa Nand
v.
rhe Ho-i •bl• Judges
oftli• Punja&
e;11a Crurt
DasJ.
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
~_;·
India but was in the first instance made applicable
to only certain named High Courts -the High
Court at Calcuttn, and the High Courts at Madras,
Bombay, Allahabad, Patna and Rangoon. It was
also provided (s. I, sub-s.2) that the Act shall
apply to such other High Court• within the meaning of ol. 24 of s. 3 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 ao the Governor-General in Council may,
by notification in the Gazette
declare to be •
High
Courts to
which
this
Act
applies.
Sections 2, 17, 18 and 19 were to come into force
at once ; but as regards the other provisions it was
enacted that they would come into force in respect
of any High Court to which the Act applied on
such date as the Governor-General in Council
might by notification direct.
Section 2 defined
Advocate as "an advocate" entered in the roll of •
advocates of a High Court under the provisions of
this Act and "High Court" as "a High Court to
which this Act applies". Sections 3, 4 and 5 deal
with the constitution and incorporation of Bar Councils. Section 8 makes it the duty of every High
Court to prepare and maintain a roll of advocates
of the High Court and also provides that 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. Section IO empowers
the High Court to reprimand, suspend or remove
from practice any advocate of the High Court whom
it finds guilty of professional and other misconduct.
The manner in which such action can be taken is
•
;
dealt with in es. 10, 11, 12 and 13. Of these, s. 12 ..
,·
provides inter alia that when any advocate is reprimand< d or suspended under this Act a record
of the punishment shall be entered against his
name in the roll of the Advocates of the High
Court and when an Advocate is removed from Practice his name shall forthwith be struck of the roll.
Section 14 provides inter alia that an advocate
shall be entitled as of right to practise in any other
Court in British India..
•
•
•
•
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
965
It is not disputed before us that the GovernorGeneral by notification in the Gazette of India did
declare the Chief Court of Sind to be a High Court
to which this Act applied and that by another notification he also directed that all the provisions of
the Act would come into force in respect of the
Chief Court of Sind on s :me date long before 1947.
Consequently, even though these notifications have
not been placed before us we must proceed on the
bases that on May 14, 1947, when the appellant
was enrolled as an advocate in the Chief Court of
Sind he was an advocate for the purposes of the
Indian Bar Councils Act and so was entitled as of
right to practise in any subordinate court3 in what
then was British India. The question is whether
this right continued to exist after Sind ceased to
form a part of India.
It appears to us clear that
whens. 2 defines advocate as "an advocate entered
in the roll of advocates of High Court'', it mean•
an advocate who hai been entered in such roll of
advocates and whose name continues to be on that
roll.
When, for example, the name of the advocate is removed from the roll under s. 12 (7) he
ceases to be an advocate within the meaning of
s. 14 inspite of the fact that his name was once
entered in that roll. An advocate entered in the
roll of advocates can therefore m(lan only one
whose name continues to be entered in that roll.
What is the position if the High Court ceases to
exist, by reason of abolition or otherwise ? The
only possible answer to this question is that if the
High Court ceases to exist ; the roll which used to
be maintained by it has also no legal existence and
consequently a person whose name was in that roll,
is no longer an advocate within the meaning of s.14
or any other section of the Act.
That appears to be exactly the position in
the present case.
The Chief Court of Sind was a
High Court within the meaning of ss. 3 to 19 of the
Indian Bar Councils Act by reason of the notifie&·
tion made by the Governor-General in Council
§ der s. 1 sub-s. 2 of th~ Act. It would be absurd
lHl
.1t1i.. Ndl
Y,
77w Ho•'614 JrJ1e.
•J 1/N Pajd
Hith C-1
D•sJ.
1061
Jelha Nand
..
1 J,, Hon' bl1 Judges
of lhe Punjab
Hizh Court
Da·sJ.
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
-.~
to think that when Sind ceased to form part of
India the Chief Court of Sind still continued to be
a High Court for the purposes of Indian law. All
doubts in the matter have however been set at rest
by the provisions of the India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947. In this connection
it is necessary to recall s. 18 sub-s. 3 of the Indian
Independence Act which provides th11t the law of
British India and of the several parts thereof existing
immediately before the appointed day shall, so far as
applicable and with the necessary adaptations, continue as the law of each of the new Dominions and the
several parts thereof until other provision is made
by Jaws of the Legislature of the Dominion in
question or by any other legislature or other authority having power in that behalf. Many adaptations
were in fact found necessary to remove complications and confusions which might otherwise have
arisen. Of the several adaptation orders made we
are concerned here with the Adaptation Order No.16
which was called the India (Adaptation of Existing
Indian laws) Order, 1947.
In this Order, the
appointed dated was defined as August 15, 1947.
l:lection 5 of the Order is in these words :-
"Any reference in an existing Indian law
to a High Court which as from the appointed
day ceases to be a High Court for any part of
the Dominion of India, shall
(a) if the reference be to the High
Court of Judicature at Lahore, be replaced by a reference to the High Court of
East Punjab, and
( b) in any other case, be omitted."
The Chief Court of Sind (a High Court within
the meaning of the General Clauses Act) having
ceased as from August 15, 1947 to be a High Court
for any part of the Dominion of India references to
that Court as one to which the Act applied must
be omitted in the application of the Indian Bar
•
•
~' (1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
967
•
•
.....
Councils Act, 1926 after that date. In other words,
the Chief Court of Sind which was a High Court for
the purposes of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926
up to the August 14, 1947 ceased to ex:ist as a High
Court for the purposes of the Indian Bar Councils
Act with effect from the 15th day of August, 1947.
The necessary consequence of this is 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 and thus-any person whose name was
entered on the roll of the Chief Court of Sind ceased to be an advocate for tll.e purpose of s. 14 of
the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 and therefore
ceased to have the right under that section to
practise in courts in India..
There can be no doubt whatsoever that in
making this adaptation ins. 5 of the India (Adaptation of Ex:isting Indian Laws) Order, 1947 the
intention of the authority making the order was
not only to ensure that rights will not in future
accrue on the basis of a High Court now in Pakistan having been formerly a High Court in India
but also to prevent the future exercise of any right
that ma.y have become vested in any person on
such a High Court having been a High Court
in India.
This conclusion is inevitable from the
absence of any saving clause in the Adaptation
Order. Thus, even though the appellant had a
right on the 14th August, 1947 to practise in the
courts subordinate to any High Court in India such
a right ceased to exist after the Adaptation Order
mentioned above.
.
We need merely add that if the appellant's
contention was correct, the anomolous position
would have a.risen that there would be no court
in India which could take disciplinary action against him, in the event of misconduct. The scheme
of the Bar Councils Act is as has been emphasised
1961
Jetha .Vand
v.
The Hon' bit Judges
of tlu Punjab
Hi:h Oourl
Dos J,
1151
J,lha Naad
v.
Tb. Hon' bit Jud11s
of the PURjab
Hith Co111I
DasJ.
1961
Dec,,,,ber f.
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. ,,...
earlier, that each High Court in the country should
have disciplinary jurisdiction over the Advocates
on its rolls.
'fhe provisions of the Adaptation
order have maintained this position.
In our opinion, the High Court rightly rejected the appellant's applicatiou. The appeal is acoor·
dingly dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case we make no •
order as to costs. But the appellant who has filed
the appeal as a pauper is directed to pay the
court-fees which would have been paid by him
if he had not been permitted to appeal as a
pauper.
Appeal dismissed.
A. N. D' SILVA
"·
UNION OF INDIA
(K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Government S.rvant-Disciplinary proceedings-Punishment-Proposal by enquiry officer, if binding on the punishing
authority-Powers of President-Union Publio Service Oommi&-
sion-Whether an appelliite authority over E"'IJUiry OfficerAdvice, if binding on Preaident-Oomtitution of India, Art..
811, 320:
D, a Divisional Engineer of Po•ts and Telegraphs was
suspended from service for
irre~ularities in the matter of
allotment of telephones. The charges were firstly, that irregularities were committed by him with a view to secure illegal
gratification for himself and others and secondly, that he
was a party to the commission of irregularities having thereby facilitated acceptance of illegal gratification by his subordinates.
The enquiry officer found him guilty of misdemeanour by disobeying orders expressly issued. The report
of the Enquiry Officer was sent by the President to the Union
Public Service Commission for their recommendations.
In
the meantime D was informed that the Government of India
tiad dec\ped tp di•idss him subject to the advice of the Unio11
•