CHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL versus CHATURBHUJ DAS PARIKH & ORS.

CHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL versus CHATURBHUJ DAS PARIKH & ORS.

'Advocate of a High Court' under Article 217(2)(b) refers to enrolment on the roll of the High Court and entitlement to practice in the High Court, not actual practice in the High Court; the appeal therefore fails.

Parties
Appellant: Chandra Prakash Agarwal; Respondent: Chiturbhuj Das Parikh; Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Respondent: Respondent No. 5
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 14433 of 1968
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Judges, Interpretation of Constitution, Qualifications: Advocate of High Court
Constitutional Law Appointment of Judges Interpretation of Constitution Qualifications: Advocate of High Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandra Prakash Agarwal

Appellant

Chiturbhuj Das Parikh

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 14433 of 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'Advocate of a High Court' in Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India: does it require actual practice in the High Court or is enrolment sufficient?

Ratio Decidendi

'Advocate of a High Court' under Article 217(2)(b) refers to enrolment on the roll of the High Court and entitlement to practice in the High Court, not actual practice in the High Court; the appeal therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs.