- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In Re Mannava Venkata Rao v. In Re Mannava Venkata Rao
Judgment Summary — Application of Mr. Venkata Rao for Enrolment and Stamp Duty Exemption
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by Mr. Venkata Rao, an advocate of the Mysore High Court, seeking enrolment as an advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh and claiming exemption from payment of stamp duty on that enrolment. Relevant facts recited in the opinion are:
- Mr. Venkata Rao was enrolled as an advocate of the Mysore High Court on 18-11-1954, at a time when Mysore was a Part B State.
- At that enrolment the Indian Stamp Act did not apply to Mysore; he paid stamp duty of Rs. 300 under the Mysore Stamp Act.
- Under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Mysore Part B was abolished and a new Mysore Part A State constituted; under S.53 of that Act the petitioner was recognised as an advocate of the present Mysore High Court and his name was entered in the roll of advocates.
- He subsequently applied to be enrolled as an advocate of the Andhra High Court and sought exemption from paying the Rs. 625 stamp duty chargeable under Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act on entry as an advocate.
The court also noted procedural circumstances: the Advocate-General's office was unattended because the Advocate-General was ill and no acting Advocate-General had been appointed; the court remarked on the importance of having an Advocate-General available to discharge statutory duties.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, having been recognised and entered on the roll of advocates of the Mysore High Court pursuant to S.53 of the States Reorganisation Act, is exempt from payment of the stamp duty otherwise chargeable under Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act upon enrolment in the Andhra High Court.
- Whether prior decisions (specifically the Division Bench decision in Abdul Khader (In re)) that deny exemption in certain circumstances apply to a person recognised as an advocate under S.53 of the States Reorganisation Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Government Pleader's Arguments
- The Government Pleader contended that two conditions must be satisfied before exemption is available:
- (i) the person must be on the rolls of another High Court; and
- (ii) the person must have paid the stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act at the time he was enrolled as an advocate of that other High Court.
- In support of that contention reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Abdul Khader (In re) (1953-2 Mad LJ 457; AIR 1954 Mad 78), where the Madras Division Bench rejected a claim for exemption and gave three reasons: (a) the exemption can only arise where the original entry itself would have been applicable, (b) "High Court" in the item is a High Court within the territory to which the Stamp Act applies, and (c) the material date for entitlement is the date of previous enrolment.
Petitioner's Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Abdul Khader (In re) — 1953-2 Mad LJ 457; AIR 1954 Mad 78 | The Division Bench rejected an advocate's claim to exemption under Article 30, reasoning that: (a) entitlement to exemption arises only where the original entry would itself have been chargeable under the Stamp Act; (b) "High Court" in the relevant item refers to a High Court within the territory to which the Stamp Act applies; and (c) the material date to determine entitlement is the date of previous enrolment. | The present court stated that it "entirely agree[d] with the reasoning" of the Madras Bench on those points but held that Abdul Khader is not applicable to the present case because the petitioner was recognised as an advocate under S.53 of the States Reorganisation Act and the statutory situation is different and unambiguous post-reorganisation. |
| Division Bench of Mysore High Court — C.M.P. No. 7506 of 1954 | Applied the Madras decision under similar circumstances when an advocate of Mysore (then Part B State) sought enrolment in the Andhra High Court. | The present court observed that that Division Bench had followed the Madras judgment under similar circumstances, but again held that those earlier decisions do not apply to a case where an advocate was recognised under the States Reorganisation Act (S.53). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning proceeds in the following steps, based strictly on the material recited in the opinion:
- Preliminary observation: the court regretted the absence of the Advocate-General but acknowledged assistance by a counsel appearing for the State in the proceedings; this is procedural and does not affect substantive analysis.
- Identification of governing statutory provisions: the court examined the Indian Bar Councils Act (Section 8), selected rules of the Andhra Bar Council, Section 53 of the States Reorganisation Act, and Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act (which fixes a Rs. 625 stamp duty on entry as an advocate under the Bar Councils Act).
- Construction of the combined provisions: the court summarized that ordinarily a person seeking enrolment in a High Court must pay Rs. 625 under the Indian Stamp Act, but that Article 30 exempts an advocate on the roll of any High Court who has previously been enrolled in a High Court from that payment.
- Application to the facts:
- The petitioner was enrolled in the Mysore High Court on 18-11-1954 when Mysore was a Part B State and paid Rs. 300 under the Mysore Stamp Act.
- Under S.53 of the States Reorganisation Act the petitioner was recognised as an advocate of the Mysore Part A High Court and his name entered in the roll of advocates of that High Court; the court treated that recognition and entry as constituting prior enrolment for the purposes of the Bar Councils Act and Article 30.
- The court observed that the Indian Stamp Act now applies to Mysore and the provisions of the Bar Councils Act are applicable; under Section 8 a person recognised is placed on the roll of advocates.
- Addressing contrary authority: the Government Pleader relied on Abdul Khader (In re) to argue that exemption should not apply because the petitioner had not paid stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act at his original enrolment. The court expressly agreed with the legal reasoning of Abdul Khader in principle but distinguished it:
- Abdul Khader concerned a different factual and statutory posture — in particular, circumstances where the original entry would not have been within the scope of the Indian Stamp Act.
- By contrast, the States Reorganisation Act (S.53) had the effect of recognising the petitioner as an advocate of the present Mysore High Court and his name was entered on that roll; the Indian Stamp Act now applies to Mysore; and the Bar Councils Act provisions operate so that the petitioner was properly enrolled.
- Conclusion of analysis: because the petitioner was recognised and placed on the list (roll) of advocates of the Mysore High Court pursuant to S.53 and Section 8, he satisfied the condition of being "an advocate of any High Court when he has previously been enrolled in a High Court" within the meaning of Article 30's exemption; therefore the exemption applies and enrolment should be directed without payment of the Rs. 625 stamp duty.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court directed the petitioner's enrolment and found that he is entitled to the exemption from payment of the stamp duty under Article 30 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Direct implications: As a direct effect of this decision, Mr. Venkata Rao is to be enrolled as an advocate of the Andhra High Court without being required to pay the stamp duty otherwise chargeable under Article 30. The court explicitly directed his enrolment.
The opinion does not articulate any broad, novel precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions; it distinguished prior authority (Abdul Khader and a Mysore Division Bench decision) on the basis that the present facts involve recognition under S.53 of the States Reorganisation Act and the changed statutory position after reorganisation. The court did not state that it was establishing a new legal principle beyond its application to the facts before it.
Source: Judgment of Subba Rao, C.J., as provided in the supplied opinion text.
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 comes into force in respect thereof; and
(b) all other persons who have been admitted to be advocates of the High Court under this Act :
Provided that such persons shall have paid in respect of enrolment the stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and a fee, payable to the Bar Council, which shall be ten rupees in the case of the persons referred to in clause (a) and in other cases such amount as may be prescribed".
Rule 1 of the Andhra Bar Council Rules : "1. Subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned :-
* * * * * *
2. an advocate entered on the roll of advocates of a High Court established by law in India other than the High Court of Andhra at Guntur :
Provided that the rules for admission in such High Court entitle an advocate entered on the roll of the High Court of Andhra at Guntur to be enrolled as an advocate of that High Court may be admitted as an advocate of the High Court."
"The States Reorganisation Act
Section 53 :- (2) The right of audience in the High Court for a new State shall be regulated in accordance with the like principles as immediately before the appointed day, are in force with respect to the right of audience in the High Court for the corresponding State :
Provided that, subject to any rule made or direction given by the High Court, for a new State in exercise of the power conferred by this section, any person who immediately before the appointed day, is an advocate entitled to practise, or an attorney entitled to act in any such High Court or Judicial Commissioners Court as may be specified in this behalf by the Chief Justice of the High Court for the new State, shall be recognised as an advocate or an attorney entitled to practise or to act as the case may be in the High Court for the new State."
"The Indian Stamp Act
Article 30. - Entry as an advocate, vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court, under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 or in exercise of powers conferred on such Court by letters patent or by the Legal PractitionersAct, 1884.
(a) in the case of an advocate or vakil Rs. 625".
5. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions may be summarised thus. An advocate of any High Court, provided there is reciprocity between the High Court where he was enrolled and the High Court wherein he seeks to be enrolled, can get himself enrolled in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of the Bar Councils Act. Under the States Reorganisation Act, advocates practising in the High Court of the Mysore part B State were entitled to be recognised as advocates of the High Court of Mysore Part A State and to be entered in the list of advocates prepared, by that High Court. A person seeking to be enrolled in this High Court has to pay stamp duty of Rs. 625 under the Indian Stamp Act, but an advocate on the roll of any High Court when he has previously been enrolled in the High Court is exempted from the payment of stamp duty. Prima facie, therefore, under the provisions, an advocate of the Mysore High Court is exempted from paying stamp duty at the time of enrolment in this High Court.
6. The learned Government Pleader contends that before he can get exemption, he must comply with two conditions : (i) that he is on the rolls of another High Court and (ii) that he should have paid the stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act at the time he was enrolled as an advocate of that High Court, and in support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Rajamannar, C. J., and Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in Abdul Khader. In re 1953-2 Mad LJ 457 : (AIR 1954 Mad 78) (A). There an advocate of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin, sought to enrol himself as an advocate of the Madras High Court and the said advocate claimed exemption under Art. 30 of the Indian Stamp Act. Rajamannar, C. J., who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench in rejecting his claim gave three reasons in support of this view : (i) the right to the benefit of the exemption can only arise in cases where the original entry itself would be applicable, (ii) "High Court" in item 25 is High Court within the territory to which the Stamp Act applies and (iii) the material date for deciding whether a person is entitled to the benefit of the exemption or not is the date of his previous enrolment. With great respect to the learned Chief Justice, we entirely agree with the reasoning on which his decision was based. Indeed, a Division Bench of this High Court in C. M. P. No. 7506 of 1954 followed the judgment under similar circumstances when an advocate of the Mysore High Court, when Mysore State was a Part B State, sought to be enrolled as an advocate of the High Court of Andhra. But those judgments, in our view, have no application to the case of an advocate who was recognised as an advocate of the Mysore Part A State under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. The learned Chief Justice gave those reasons in an attempt to ascertain the meaning of the words "High Court" in Art. 30. But no such ambiguity as existed at that time obtains now, for, the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act are clear and unambiguous on the matter. Under S. 53 of the States Reorganisation Act, the petitioner was recognised as an advocate of the present High Court of Mysore State. It is admitted that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act apply to that State now. It is also not denied that the provisions of the Bar Councils Act are equally applicable. Under S. 8 of the Bar Councils Act a person enrolled is placed in the roll of advocates of the High Court and presumably the petitioner was placed in the list of advocates of that High Court.
In short, the petitioner was put in the list of advocates of the Mysore High Court, and, therefore, was enrolled as an advocate of that High Court. If so, he is "an advocate of any High Court when he has previously been enrolled in a High Court" within the meaning of the exemption to Art. 30 of the Stamp Act. He has certainly been enrolled previously as an Advocate, of the Mysore High Court when he was recognised as such and his name was entered in the list of advocates. He is also now on the roll of advocates of that High Court. He is, therefore, entitled to the exemption. We accordingly direct his enrolment.
Enrolment directed.
Alert