AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 220 wordsM.S. Menon, J.—The question that arises for decision is whether the petitioner is entitled to practise in the subordinate Courts of this State by virtue of his enrolment as an Advocate of the High-Court of Bombay.
The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (Central Act 38 of 1926) and the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Central Act 18 of 1879) are now in force in Travancore-Cochin. As held in - The District Judge of Anantapur Vs. K.V. Vema Reddi (Advocate) and Others, and - In Re: Devasaran Lall Sinha, the latter enactment will not in any way affect the question before us and in the light of those decisions the petitioner''s prayer has to be allowed.
The only doubt that we had was whether Section 8, Cochin Vakils'' Act, 6 of 1895, will complicate the issue. We have, however, come to the conclusion that by virtue of Section 6, Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Central Act 3 of 1951) the Cochin Vakils'' Act, 6 of 1095 has ceased to be operative from the date on which the whole of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Central Act 18 of 1879), was brought into -force in the State, namely, from 13-10-1952 (vide Notification No. C. J. 4-21613/52/CS, Travancore-Cochin Government Gazette dated, 21-10-1952, Part I, page 1175).
The petition is allowed.