Writ 70 of 2015 - against Advocates Rules-1.pdf

1

T. No. _____________ of 2015

W.P. No. 70 of 2015

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

IN THE MATTER OF : An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India;

AND IN THE MATTER OF : The Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1914

AND IN THE MATTER OF :

Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961

IN THE MATTER OF :

MR. DEEPAK KHOSLA & ORS.

………….PETITIONERS

Versus

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. ………….RESPONDENTS

Group : IX Heads : -

of the Classification List.

………………………………. DATE : 22-01-2015 Deepak Khosla (Advocate) PLACE:KOLKATA PETITIONER No. 1 IN PERSON

D - 367 Defence Colony NEW DELHI 110 024 Tel : 099 530 96650

[email protected]

Also at : Suite No. 408, 4th Floor

Center Point 21 Old Court House Street

(also known as Hemant Basu Sarani) KOLKATA -700 001

mailto:[email protected]

2

T. No. _____________ of 2015 W.P. No. 70 of 2015

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

IN THE MATTER OF : MR. DEEPAK KHOSLA & ORS. ………….PETITIONERS

Versus

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA & ORS. ………….RESPONDENTS

INDEX Sl.

No.

Particulars

Page No.

1. Group Index. -

2. Index -

3. List of dates. 1 – 3

4. Points Involved. 4 – 5

5. Proforma. 6

6. Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, alongwith affidavit.

7 - 42

7. Annexure 1: Chapter I of the Calcutta High Court

(Original Side) Rules, 1914.

43 - 48

8. Annexure 2 : Letter dated 09-01-2015 filed by Mr.

Deepak Khosla, with Ld. Registrar (Original Side),

seeking insertion of his name in the Register of

Advocates.

49 – 52

9. Annexure 3 : Letter dated 21-01-2015 from Ld.

Registrar (Original Side), declining to insert his name

in the Register of Advocates.

53

10. Annexure 4 : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd & Ors (2010 10 SCC 280).

54 – 55

11. Annexure 5 : “Delhi Courts Service of Processes by Courier, Fax and Electronic Mail Service (Civil Proceedings) Rules, 2010”.

56 -67

DATE : 22-01-2015 Deepak Khosla (Advocate) PLACE:KOLKATA PETITIONER IN PERSON

Suite No. 408, 4th Floor Center Point

21 Old Court House Street (also known as Hemant Basu Sarani)

KOLKATA -700 001

1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA AT KOLKATA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No._____________OF 2015

[Under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India]

IN THE MATTER OF: DEEPAK KHOSLA & ORS.

……….PETITIONERS

Vs.

HON’BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, & ORS.

……RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS, & LIST OF DATES

1. 1861 : The Calcutta High Court came into being, by virtue of Indian High

Courts Act, 1861, followed by the Letters Patent of 1862.

2. 1879 : The Legal Practitioners Act was enacted.

3. 1914 : The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta promulgated the Calcutta High

Court (Original Side) Rules, 1914, (presumably) in exercise of the relevant

empowering Clause in its Letters Patent and / or Section 122 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908. These Rules defined the credentials and basis for

advocates desirous of practicing on the Original Side.

4. 1908 : The Code of Civil Procedure (1908) was enacted.

5. 1926 : The Bar Council of India Act (1926) was enacted.

2

6. 1961 : The Advocates Act (1961) was enacted, creating a unified Bar for

India, whereby many provisions of the Legal Practioners Act were repealed.

7. 09-01-2015 : The petitioner No. 1 (Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate), citing the

notifying of Section 30 of the Advocates Act (1961) with effect from 15-06-

2011, filed his application with Ld. Registrar (Original Side), seeking

insertion of his name in the Register maintained by him under Rule 2 of the

aforesaid Rules. He categorically stated that his request was without

prejudice to his rights to challenge that aforesaid archaic Rule, as it was not

only redundant after the notifying of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, but

was patently contrary to the aforesaid Act, and hence, an unreasonable

restriction that abrogated the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

8. 09-01-2015 : Some local advocates, citing the Original Side Rules, hotly

objected to Petitioner No. 1 appearing before the Court of Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Anirudh Bose, arguing that he had no right appear on the Original

Side, as his name had not been inserted in the Register maintained under

Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules.

9. 22-01-2015 : The Ld. Registrar (Original Side) rejected the application of

the Petitioner No. 1 for insertion of his name in the Register maintained

under Rule 4, on the sole grounds that he is not registered with the Bar

Council of West Bengal.

3

10. 22-01-2015 : Hence, this petition is filed before this Hon'ble Court, seeking

assertion of his right to practice as an advocate before this Hon'ble Court,

both on its Original Side, as well as on its Appellate Side.

Sd/-

………………………………. DATE : 22-01-2015 Deepak Khosla (Advocate) PLACE:KOLKATA PETITIONER IN PERSON

Suite No. 408, 4th Floor Center Point

21 Old Court House Street (also known as Hemant Basu Sarani)

KOLKATA -700 001

4







Vs.


……RESPONDENTS

POINTS INVOLVED

This petition raises several substantial questions of law of constitutional and

public importance as they concern the protection of fundamental rights of the

petitioner, which may be summarized as follows:

Question 1 : Whether, after notifying of Section 30 of the Advocates Act

(1961) with effect from 15-06-2011, any restrsiction can be placed by any

Court on the right of an advocate to practice his profession anywhere n

India ?

Answer of the petitioner : No, no such restriction can be placed, as the right

to practice before any Court would now be guaranteed not onlhy by the

Advocates Act (1961) but also by Article 19(1)(g) of the Consttititon.

Question 2 : Whether any legislation, whether subordinate or even co-

ordinate, that is in conflict with provisions of the Advocates Act (1961)

can stand after 15-06-2011 ?

5

Answer of the petitioner : No. Section 50 of the Advocates Act makes that

clear.

Sd/-



[email protected]





6







Vs.


……RESPONDENTS

PROFORMA

Sd/-



[email protected]





7

T. No. _____________ of 2015

W.P. No. _____________ of 2015

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

IN THE MATTER OF : An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India;

AND IN THE MATTER OF : The Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1914

AND IN THE MATTER OF :

Section 30 and 50 of the Advocates Act, 1961

AND IN THE MATTER OF : Refusal of the Ld. Registrar (Original Side) to allow the petitioner to practice on the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.

IN THE MATTER OF :

MR. DEEPAK KHOSLA

An advocate, having his office at Suite No. 408, 4th Floor, Center Point, 21 Old Court House Stret (now known as Hemant Basu Sarani), KOLKATA 700 001 and permanent residence at D-367 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024 ………….PETITIONERS

Versus

1. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

(In its ‘administrative’ capacity) Acting through its Ld. Registrar General, KOLKATA 700 001

2. LD. REGISTRAR (Original Side)

Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, KOLKATA 700 001

3. BAR COUNCIL OF WEST BENGAL Acting through its Secretary c/o High Court, Kolkata

………….RESPONDENTS

8

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING, INTER ALIA, ISSUANCE OF A

WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO LD. REGISTRAR (ORIGINAL SIDE),

SEEKING PERFORMANCE OF HIS STATUTORY DUTIES IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AS STIPULATED BY SECTION 30 AND

50 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT (1961) WHICH NOW OVER-RIDE

RULE 2(i) OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (ORIGINAL SIDE)

RULES, 1914.

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr. (Ms.) Manjula Chellur,

and

her Companion Judges of the

Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta at Kolkata.

The Humble petition on behalf of the Petitioners above named:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the

petitioner to practice on the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court as an

“advocate”. His right to do so is now guaranteed not just by notifying of

Section 30 of the Advocates Act (1961) with effect from 15-06-2011, but

also, by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, read with Section 50

of the Advocates Act, which repeals all contrary legislations flowing, inter

alia, from Letters Patent of any High Court, and /or from the Legal

Practitioners Act of 1879, any High Court Rules, etc upon the notifying of

all the provisions of the Advocates Act (1961), thus, rendering itself into a

complete and exclusive Code unto itself with effect from 15-06-2011.

9

2. The petitioner No. 1 is a citizen of the country, and hence, eligible to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under the powers conferred

upon by it by Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against

entities that are ‘State’. He is an “advocate” within the meaning of the

word as defined in the Advocates Act (1961), and is duly registered under

the aforesaid Act with the Bar Council of Karnataka (KAR – 1280/2013),

and practices in many locations all over India, having clients / matters in

Karnataka (Bengaluru), Delhi, H. P., Uttrakhand, Maharashtra (Mumbai),

West Bengal (Kolkata), etc. Therefore, it is not possible for him to be

registered with only one State Bar Council. By virtue of notifying of

Section 30 of the Advocates Act as operative with effect from 15-06-2011,

petitioner No. 1 now has a fundmental right guaranteed to him by Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to practice his profession of advocacy

anywhere in India, with a corresponding right of audience before any

Court across the country.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Calcutta High Court is still

purporting to operate under the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules,

1914 (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Side Rules”), some of whose

provisions are hereby challenged, specifically, Rule 2(i) and Rule 4(i).

A copy of the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules (1914), as amended

up to date, are appended hereto, and is marked as Annexure 1.

4. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of

Calcutta has not notified any Rules relating to service by email, despite the

dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as far back as in 2010.

10

DECLARATION ON IMPLEADMENT OF ALL AFFECTED PARTIES :

5. That to the best of the understanding of the petitioner, all the persons /

bodies / institutions likely to be affected by the orders sought in the

present writ petition have been impleaded by him as Respondents, and

that to best of the knowledge as well as understanding of the petitioner,

that to the extent that they are practically impleadable, no other persons /

bodies / institutions are likely to be adversely affected by the orders

sought in the writ petition.

Nonetheless, if any such body / person / institution exists, the petitioner

has no hesitation in their seeking impleadment in the same, as the

petitioner shall not, and hereby undertakes that he shall not, oppose the

prayer of any person who seeks impleadment in the present matter as a

Respondent so long as the motives for doing so are not with intent to

delay the due course of judicial proceedings, or such-like motivated

reasons.

6. That the Respondent Nos. 1-3 all are ‘State’ (or ‘public servants’ deemed

as ‘State’) within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and

hence, are amenable to the ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court

provided by Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for any act or acts

being illegal or improper or inappropriate, more particularly in case of

illegal, or discriminatory, or unreasonable, or arbitrary, or other acts of

the Respondents Nos. 1-3 not being in accordance with both the ‘letter’ of

11

the law as well as its ‘spirit’, where the word ‘acts’ used herein includes

those of ‘commission’ or even of ‘omission’1.

7. That the Respondents are further elaborated upon below, the inclusion of

each being arrayed as a party in the present writ petition so as to not let

the petition suffer, or risk to suffer, for a non-joinder of parties.

They have been arrayed either because they are ‘necessary’ parties in the

present proceedings (because in their absence, no order can be made

effectively, or because the orders sought directly affect their rights or

vitally affect them, and therefore, by the principles of natural justice, no

order ought to be passed by this Hon'ble Court behind their backs), or

because they are ‘proper’ parties (because in their absence, an effective

order, though perhaps possible to be made, would obstruct, or not

facilitate, a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the

proceeding), or both.

The inclusion of these Respondents is in light of the criteria spelt out, inter

alia, by a 4-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udit

Narayan Singh vs. Board of Revenue, Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 786), read with

the views of a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in the

case of Prabodh Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1985 SC 167).

It is to be respectfully stated that the necessity for their inclusion in the

present proceedings is at great incremental cost to the petitioner (in

terms of being required to serve that many additional copies, in terms of

1 Please see Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code – omissions are as punishable as acts of commission.

12

being required to read, analyze and study that many more counter-

affidavits, in terms of having to prepare that many more rejoinder

affidavits, etc), but who has volunteered to suffer this additional cost and

burden only in order to comply with the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in regard to what ought to be a ‘proper’ and ‘complete’ array of

parties ; hence, despite this burden of additional cost adversely affecting

the petitioner’s interests, these Respondents have been arrayed by him

also as ‘necessary’ parties as any view taken by this Hon'ble Court based

on the response from the other ‘State’ Respondents on the issues raised

herein, including general civil consequences of the writs of certiorari or

mandamus requested herein, as well as / or potential culpability and/or

consequences thereof that will or may ensue, will undoubtedly affect the

position of some of these Respondents also. Hence, all these Respondents

deserve an opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken by this

Hon'ble Court on the issues set out herein.

The Respondents are as follows :

a) Respondent No. 1 is the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, acting in its

“administrative” capacity, acting through its Ld. Registrar General. It is

arrayed as reliefs are sought against it, and its Rules on the Original

Side are sought to be enforced.

b) Respondent No. 2 is the Ld. Registrar (Original Side) of the Hon'ble

High Court of Calcutta. He is arrayed as the onus to issue a Show-Cause

Notice in terms of Rule 16 of the Original Side Rules to Respondent No.

4 to 7 to show cause to Hon'ble Judge in chambers why they should not

13

be debarred from practicing on the Original Side is on him, but who is

not issuing the same, even though their reprehensible breaches are

writ large on the face of the record, and have been complained of

formally by Petitioner No. 1 as far back as on 09-01-2015.

c) Respondent No. 8 is the Bar Council of West Bengal. They have been

arrayed as it would be the registering body under the Advocates Act

(19961) for any advocate who wishes to exclusively pratice in its

jurisdiction.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE LAW ON ADVOCATES’ RIGHTS AND

DUTIES

8. The historical evolution of the law on the rights and duties of advocates

can be seen from the following events, presented chronologically below :

Sl.

No.

DATE

EVENT

1. 1772 By an “Act of Settlement”, the British Parliament

recognized the prerogative of the East India

Company to administer civil justice through

“Sadar Diwani Adalats”, in terms of the authority

so received by it from the Mughal Emperor.

2. Prior to 1780 Justice was dispensed by ‘Adalats’, which were

assisted by ‘Pandits’ and ‘Maulvies’. Their

‘opinions’ were generally accepted by the Courts

while handing out a verdict.

14

3. 1774 The Supreme Court started functioning at

Calcutta. However, Indians were not allowed to

practice there, and it was only the preserve of

English Barristers. As a direct result of this

anomaly, its functioning was marred by the first

case itself (that of Maharaja Nanda Kumar, who

was defended by Thomas Farrer). As the British

Barristers did not know the local language, the

complications arising from such ignorance (and

even the law that was applicable) resulted in a

blatant miscarriage of justice in that case, which

smeared the first Court erected in India by a

statute of British Parliament.

4. 1780 Regulation of 1780 was passed by the East India

Company for the Sadar and Provincial Diwani

Adalats. In its 13th section, it spoke of vakeels who

could put questions to witnesses. Immediately

prior to this, the real job of ‘lawyers’ was being

performed by Pandits and Maulvies.

5. 1793 When the Vakeels previously appeared in the

Adalats, no enquiries were made to ascertain

whether they were qualified to plead the cause. As

a result, many a time, trials were protracted

because of production of unnecessary exhibits, or

asking of irrelevant questions, etc. The

15

authorities, therefore, decided that pleading of

causes should be made a distinct profession. It

was decided that no person should be admitted to

plead in the Courts unless he was a man of

character and education, and well-versed in the

Mohammedan or Hindu Laws, and in the

Regulations enforced by the Company.

Hence, Bengal Regulation No. VII of 1793 was

enacted. By its means, for the first time, a regular

legal profession for the courts was set up by the

East India Company. By its means, it also provided

for appointment of “Native Pleaders” in the Courts

of Civil Judicature for the Provinces of Bengal,

Bihar and Orissa. It was also decided that these

lawyers should be subjected to rules and

restrictions calculated to ensure to their clients a

diligent and faithful discharge of the trusts

reposed in them by their clients as well as by the

courts. The Regulation authorized the Sadar

Diwani Adalat to admit a suitable number of

vakeels, to issue them Charter to practice in

different courts, and to prescribe qualifications for

their enrolment. It also provided for disciplinary

jurisdiction of the Sadar Diwani Adalats on the

vakeels.

It is, perhaps, from this time onwards that the

16

phrase “Officer of the Court” is being used to

describe a ‘pleader’, as he had official sanction as

well as support of the specific court before whom

he practiced.

6. 1814 Regulation XXVII of 1814 brought about some

changes in the legal profession. It prohibited

practice of law by persons other than those

enrolled by the Sadar Diwani Adalats, and

restricted the profession to individuals of Hindu

and Mohammedan persuasion.

7. 1833 The invidious communal provision in the

Regulation of 1814 was abolished by the

Regulation XII of 1833, and the office of

‘pleaders’ was made open to persons of all

religions or nationality. As a result, thereafter,

every qualified person became eligible to be

enrolled as a ‘pleader’ of the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

8. 1861 The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 came to be

enacted.

9. 1862 The Letters Patent of 1862 was passed into law.

Clauses 7-10 of the Letters Patent empowered the

High Courts to admit 3 classes of practitioners :

advocates, vakeels and attorneys, and to exercise

disciplinary jurisdiction over them.

10. 1865 The Revised Letters Patent of 1865 was enacted,

17

whereby its Clause 9 authorised the High Courts

to approve, admit and enroll 3 classes of

practitioners : Advocates, Vakeels, and

Attorneys. “Advocates” in this sense meant

“Barristers”. The persons so admitted were

entitled to appear for the suitors of the High

Courts, and to plead or act according to the rules

framed by the High Courts, or directions issued to

them.

11. 1866 The Madras High Court allowed Vakeels who,

hitherto, were only allowed to appear on its

Appellate Side, to also appear on its Original Side.

(The logic of previously allowing them to appear

only on the Appellate Side was that the High

Court, in its Appellate jurisdiction, was an

‘extension’ of the Sadar Diwani Adalats.)

12. 1879 The Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 was enacted,

which made important changes in the law, namely

:

(a) the office of ‘pleader’ was now thrown open to

all persons of any nationality or religion, so long

as they were duly certified by the Sadar Diwani

Adalat ;

(b) the definition of “legal practitioner” now

included 6 categories viz. ‘advocate’ or ‘vakil’ or

18

‘attorney’ of any High Court, and also, a ‘pleader’,

‘mukhtar’ or ‘revenue agent’.

(c) Attorneys and Barristers of Her Majesty’s

Courts (usually, Englishmen) who, thus far, were

not permitted to practice, as of right, in the Sadar

Diwani Adalats, were now allowed to plead in the

Adalats, subject to rules in force in such Adalats ;

(d) the pleaders were permitted to enter into

agreements with their clients for their fees for

professional services.

(e) For the first time, elaborate provisions were

made in respect of disciplinary jurisdiction over

the pleaders.

The consequence of this Act was that from now

on, though Barristers and Attorneys (usually,

Englishmen) were permitted to practice in the

courts erected by the East India Company (the

Sadar Diwani Adalats), however, an Indian legal

practitioner could not appear before the Supreme

Courts.

13. 1886 Under the amended Rules of the Madras High

Court, a law graduate was qualified to be admitted

as a ‘Vakeel’ if he passed an examination in

procedure and underwent practical training with

a practicing lawyer for a year. Thus, from now on,

19

in the Madras High Court, there was no distinction

between Barristers, Vakeels and Attorneys insofar

as zone of practice was concerned, and under its

Rules, Vakeels and Attorneys could also act on its

Original Side.

However, this was not so, for example, with the

Bombay High Court, where vakeels still could not

act or plead on its Original Side.

14. 1899-1908 During the tenure of Chief Justice Jenkins of the

Bombay High Court, while there was institutional

persuasion to get talented Vakeels to start to

practice on its Original Side, however, this was

still subject to the limitation that the Advocates of

the Original Side, whether Barristers or non-

Barristers, had to be instructed by an Attorney

before they could appear and plead on the

Original Side.

But in Calcutta, only the ‘Advocates’ (i.e. the

‘Barristers’ of England and Ireland, and the

‘Advocates’ of Scotland) were entitled to appear

and plead on its Original Side, although on the

instructions of an ‘Attorney’. They were also

entitled to appear and plead on the Appellate Side.

However, ‘Vakeels’ were not entitled to act or

plead before the High Court (successor to the

20

Supreme Court) on the Original Side, or even in

appeals from the Original Side, and could only act

and plead in the Sadar Diwani Adalats, and in

appeals before the High Court from matters

before the Sadar Diwani Adalats.

As a result, ‘Advocates’ (Barristers) could only

appear and plead on the Original Side on the

instructions of an ‘Attorney’ empowered to act on

the Original Side, whereas on the Appellate Side,

they were allowed both to act and plead, as in the

Sadar Diwani Adalats.

Thus, there came to be an invidious distinction in

the Calcutta High Court (which, then, was the

capital of the Indian Empire) between the rights of

Barristers, Vakeels and Attorneys, and it is from

this distinction that grew the practice on its

Original Side that pleading would be confined to

Barristers, and acting to Solicitors, whereas on

its Appellate Side, even ‘vakeels’ could plead as

well as act, just as they did before the Sadar

Diwani Adalats.

15. 1908 The Code of Civil Procedure was enacted.

Keeping in mind the three distinct classes of legal

practitioners in existence under The Legal

Practitioners Act of 1879 (i.e. ‘Barristers’, ‘Vakeels’

21

and ‘Attorneys’), and in order to render itself

harmonious with the then-prevailing practice of

the Chartered High Courts under the Letters

Patent of making provisions of who, under The

Legal Practitioners Act of 1879, could ‘act’, and

who could ‘appear’ and who could ‘plead’,

provided in Order III Rule IV, a sub-Rule V, and

also, a proviso to the same.

The contents of the same are reproduced below,

because from a plain reading of these provisions,

it is clear that these provisions were inserted in

the Code to meet the legal exigencies of that time

as existing under The Legal Practitioners Act of

1879, but after enactment of The Advocates Act of

1961, these provisions are now patently

redundant, as well as contrary to law :

(5) No pleader who has been engaged for

the purpose of pleading only shall plead on

behalf of any party, unless he has filed in

Court a Memorandum of Appearance

signed by himself and stating :-

(a) the names of the parties to the

suits,

(b) the name of the party for whom

22

he appears, and

(c) the name of the person by whom he is

authorised to appear :

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall

apply to any pleader engaged to plead on

behalf of any party by any other pleader

who has been duly appointed to act in

Court on behalf of such party.

The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure’s

provisions relating to ‘pleaders’ were framed by

the contents of The Legal Practitioner’s Act of 1879

is self-evident from the Definition of ‘pleader’ at

Section 2(15) of the Code, which is now totally

contrary to the Advocates Act of 1961, as it says as

follows :

2(15) "pleader" means any person entitled to

appear and plead for another in Court, and includes

an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High

Court;

This “triple” terminology has now been rendered

redundant by the Advocates Act of 1961, clearly

showing the need for re-visiting the Code, and

therefore, also re-visiting the real and

23

concurrently-contextual meaning of Order III Rule

4’s sub-rule (5) (especially including its proviso), if

not its very existence.

16. 1914 The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta promulgated

the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1914,

(presumably) in exercise of the relvant

empowering Clause in its Letters Patent and / or

Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

These Rules defined the basis and credentials for

advocates desirous of practicing on the Original

Side.

17. 1923 In November 1923, a private Bill was moved in

the Central Legislative Assembly to amend the law

as to legal practitioners, and to create an All-India

Bar. In consequence, the Government constituted

the Indian Bar Committee under the

Chairmanship of Sir Edward Chamier who had

been the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, and

then, the Legal Adviser and Solicitor to the

Secretary of State of India at London.

18. 1924 In February 1924, the Chamier Committee

submitted its report. It did not consider it feasible

to organize the Bar on an All-India basis, or to

constitute an All India Bar Council.

Instead, it suggested that :

24

a) in all the High Courts, there be established a

single grade of practitioners entitled to

plead, who should be called “Advocates”,

the only distinction being that if special

conditions are placed for admission to

plead on the Original Side, the distinction

within that single grade being those

entitled to appear on the Original Side, and

those not entitled to do so.

b) Subject to certain conditions being fulfilled,

‘Vakeels’ should also be allowed to plead on

the Original Side of the three Chartered

High Courts i.e. Calcutta, Madras and

Bombay.

c) Each High Court should constitute a Bar

Council, which should have the power to

enquire into matters calling for disciplinary

action against a lawyer ; and

d) The disciplinary powers should rest with

the High Court, but before taking any

action, it should refer the matter to the Bar

Council for enquiry and report.

19. 1926 To implement the recommendation of the

Chamier Committee, the Indian Bar Council Act

of 1926 was enacted, which – to some extent –

25

brought about the unification and autonomy of

the Bar. By this, it allowed the High Courts to

retain its power to prescribe who could appear on

its Original Side, and who could not. As a result,

advocates enrolled with other High Courts could

not, as a matter of right, appear in other High

Courts ; they could do only with prior permission

of the Chief Justice, which – many a time – was

denied.

20. 1949 The Bombay High Court took the first step of

doing away with two Bars, though it retained the

distinction that ‘Advocates’ could still not act on

the Original Side unless instructed by ‘Attorneys’.

21. 1951 In response to persistent and wide-spread

demand for an All-India Bar, the Government of

India appointed the All-India Bar Committee

under the chairmanship of Justice Mr. S. R. Das of

the Supreme Court.

22. 1951 The Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High

Courts) Act, 1951 was enacted.

23. 1952 On a challenge raised by Mr. Aswini Kumar Ghosh

(an Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court) to

the refusal of the Calcutta High Court to allow him

to appear there, in a majority 3:2 decision of a 5-

Judge Bench, it was held that an Advocate of the

26

Supreme Court was entitled as of right to appear

and plead as well as to act in all the High Courts.

(Justice Mr. S. R. Das, Chairman of the All-India

Bar Committee constituted in 1951, was one of

the two dissenting Judges.)

24. 1960 The Bombay High Court allowed that in limited

areas, an Advocate could appear and plead on the

Original Side without being instructed by an

Attorney, areas such as applications under Article

226 of the Constitution, and in taxation matters

such as those relating to Income Tax, Wealth Tax,

Gift Tax, etc.

25. 1961 Owing, inter alia, to rising costs for litigants on the

one hand by the ‘dual’ system of ‘Attorneys’ and

‘Advocates’ (Barristers), and objections from

within the profession on the other, the Advocates

Act of 1961 was enacted, which unified all the

four classes of legal practitioners existing hitherto

(i.e. ‘pleaders’, ‘vakeels’, ‘Advocates’, and

‘Attorneys’), and from that date onwards, there is

only one single class of ‘Advocate’ who is entitled

to practice the profession of law in India, from the

lowest to the highest court in the land.

Most significantly, by its Section 51, it stipulated

as follows :

27

51. Rule of construction.- On and from the

appointed day, references in any enactment to an

advocate enrolled by a High Court in any form of

words shall be construed as references to an

advocate enrolled under this Act.

By its Section 50, it also repealed the following

enactments, including those of the Letters

Patent as specified therein :

50. Repeal of certain enactments.- (1) On the

date on which a State Bar Council is constituted

under this Act, the provisions of sections 3 to 7

(inclusive), sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 9,

section 15 and section 20 of the Indian Bar Councils

Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), shall stand repealed in the

territory for which the State Bar Council is

constituted.

(2) On the date on which Chapter III comes into

force, the following shall stand repealed, namely:--

(a) sections 6, 7, 18 and 37 of the Legal

Practitioners Act, 1879 (18 of 1879), and so much

of sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 41 of that Act as

relate to the admission and enrolment of legal

practitioners;

(b) sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Bombay Pleaders

28

Act, 1920 (Bombay Act 17 of 1920);

(c) so much of section 8 of the Indian Bar

Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), as relates to the

admission and enrolment of legal practitioners;

(d) the provisions of the Letters Patent of

any High Court and of any other law in so far as

they relate to the admission and enrolment of

legal practitioners.

(3) On the date on which Chapter IV comes into


(a) sections 4, 5, 10 and 20 of the Legal


of sections 8, 9, 19 and 41 of that Act as confer on

legal practitioners the right to practice in any court

or before any authority or person;

(b) sections 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Bombay

Pleaders Act, 1920 (Bombay Act 17 of 1920);

(c) section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act,

1926 (38 of 1926) and, so much of sections 8 and 15

of that Act as confer on legal practitioners the right

to practice in any court or before any authority or

person;

(d) the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in

29

High Courts) Act, 1951 (18 of 1951);

(e) the provisions of the Letters Patent of

any High Court and of any other law conferring

on legal practitioners the right to practice in

any court or before any authority or person.

(4) On the date on which Chapter V comes into


(a) sections 12 to 15 (inclusive), sections 21 to

24 (inclusive) and sections 39 and 40 of the Legal


of sections 16, 17 and 41 of that Act as relate to the

suspension, removal or dismissal of legal

practitioners;

(b) sections 24 to 27 (inclusive) of the Bombay

Pleaders Act, 1920 (Bombay Act 17 of 1920);

(c) sections 10 to 13 (inclusive) of the Indian

Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926);

(d) the provisions of the Letters Patent of

any High Court and of any other law in so far as

they relate to the suspension, removal or

dismissal of legal practitioners.

(5) When the whole of this Act has come into

30

force--

(a) the remaining provisions of the Acts

referred to in this section which do not stand

repealed by virtue of any of the foregoing

provisions of this section (except sections 1, 3 and

36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879) (18 of

1879) shall stand repealed;

(b) the enactment specified in the Schedule

shall stand repealed to the extent mentioned

therein.

26. 1962 The Bar Council of India Rules were enacted

under the Advocates Act of 1961. As per the

definition set out in Part I (Definitions) (b), an

‘advocate’ means an advocate enrolled in any roll

under the provisions of the Advocates Act. Part VI,

Chapter II, Section II, Rule 19 of the Rules states

that : “An advocate shall not act on the instructions

of any person other than his client or his

authorized agent.” (Explanatory Note : Authorised

‘agent’ cannot include another ‘pleader’, since

Rule 2 has defined ‘agents” in Rule 2(a) and Rule

2(b), and furthermore, Rule 3 also has

‘contextually’ defined ‘agent’.)

27. 17-04-1962 The Bar Council of West Bengal came into being.

28. 1973 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was

31

enacted. It used a different meaning for the word

‘pleader’. Its Section 2(q) reads as follows : 2(q) :

"pleader", when used with reference to any

proceeding in any Court, means a

person authorised by or under any law for the time

being in force, to practise in such Court, and

includes any other person appointed with the

permission of the Court to act in such proceeding;

29. 1976 The Advocates (Amendment) Act was passed,

whereby the special provisions of Section 31

(relating to ‘attorneys’) were deleted.

30. 1992 In a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the

case of ONGC vs. Offshore Enterprises, Inc. (AIR

1993 Bomb 217), in a matter argued by many legal

luminaries (including Mr. A. P. Shah, as he was

then known, now Hon'ble Chairman of the Law

Commission, acting then as President of the

Maharashtra Bar Council, and Mr. G. E. Vahanvati,

etc), it was held that if a lawyer accepted a brief to

act as ‘Attorney’ of a client (i.e. as his ‘agent’

within the meaning of Order III Rule 1), then he

could not act also simultaneously as his ‘advocate’

or ‘pleader’.

Therefore, if an advocate signs a Vakalatnaama in

favour of another advocate, means that he has

32

acted on his own Vakalatnaama as if he is the

‘agent’ or ‘power-of-attorney’ of the client, rather

than his advocate.

This being the case, if one goes by the usual type

of language used in most Vakalatnaamas in Delhi

or Kolkata today, most advocates, if they actually

exercise the power shown therein (i.e. of engaging

another advocate) would have, perhaps, accepted

the brief to actually be the ‘agents’ / ‘power-of-

attorney’ holder of their clients, and not as their

‘advocates’.

The Bombay High Court, by virtue of its Rules

framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act,

has specifically prescribed the Model Form of

Vakalatnaama for its Courts.

31. 15-06-2011 Section 30 of the Advocates Act was notified and

went into force. With this, all the provisions of the

aforesaid Act now stand as in force, thus, by

virtue of Section 50(2)(d), Section 50(3)(e) and

Section 50(4)(d), repealing all contrary provisions

that may have evolved under, inter alia, Letters

Patent as well.

SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE PRESENT MATTER :

9. That the Petitioner has been engaged by his clients (Hungerford

Investment Trust Ltd) to act in their matters which are pending before

33

this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, in discharge of his professional duties, he

came to the Calcutta High Court to argue some matters on 09-01-2015 i.e.

CP No. 33 of 1988, a matter specially assigned to the Court of Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Anirudh Bose, and some other matters.

10. That to his shock, during the hearing, instead of allowing the long-pending

matter to proceed on its merits, some advocates with Khaitan & Co, who

themselves have no right of audience before this Hon'ble Court, tried their

level best to thwart his right to practice his profession, by raising all sort

of frivolous and vexatious objections to his appearance in the Court as an

‘advocate’. Chiefly, they objected that as per Chapter I of the Original Side

Rules, he could not practice on the Original Side of this Hon'ble Court, on

the grounds that his name had not been inserted in the Register required

to be maintained by Respondent No. 2 [Ld. Registrar (Original Side)]

under Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules.

11. That as a consequence, they unreasonably urged the Hon’ble Court to deny

the Petitioner the right of audience, even though the Hon’ble court, by

virtue of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules, is empowered to

allow audience to any other person to appear before it in a particular

cause. Leave is craved to produce copies of the orders passed in CP No. 33

of 1988 from 09-01-2015 to 15-01-2015 at the time of hearing, as they

reflect the stubborn insistence of these individuals that as per the Original

Side Rules, the Petitioner could not appear on the Original Side of this

Hon'ble Court.

34

12. That this objection was raised (and continued be raised) despite the

Petitioner No. 1 informing the Hon’ble Court that Section 30 of the

Advocates Act had been notified with effect from 15-06-2011, and

consequently, he had a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution to practice before this Hon'ble Court. He further

pleaded that even otherwise, he had complied with the requirements of

Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules, no matter how unreasonable and

outdated as it may be. In evidence of his compliance, a copy of his letter

dated 09-01-2015 filed with Ld. Registrar (Original Side) was handed over

to the Hon’ble Court, and a true typed copy of the same is appended

hereto, and is marked as Annexure 2.

13. That the Petitioner No. 1 further urged the Hon’ble Court that in order to

allow retention of focus on the main issue before the Hon’ble court and

not allow diversionary tactics of these advocates 7 to rule the day, it may

be pleased to exercise its powers in terms of the proviso to Rule 5.

However, no headway could be made owing to the disruptive manner of

urging of their submissions by these advocates.

14. That subsequently, Ld. Registrar (Original Side) has issued his formal

letter dated 21-01-2015, declining his right to have his name inserted in

thr Register of Advocates, and thus, entitled to practice on the Originakl

Side solely because he is not registered with the Bar Council of West

Bengal, even though he is duly registered with the Bar Council of

Karnataka.

35

QUESTIONS RAISED :

15. This petition raises several substantial questions of law of constitutional

and public importance as they concern the protection of fundamental

rights of the petitioner, which may be summarized as follows:

Question 1 : Whether, after notifying of Section 30 of the Advocates

Act (1961) with effect from 15-06-2011, any restriction can be

placed by any Court on the right of an advocate to practice his

profession anywhere in India ?

Answer of the petitioner : No, no such restriction can be placed, as

the right to practice before any Court would now be guaranteed not

only by Section 30 of the Advocates Act (1961) but also by Article

19(1)(g) of the Constititition, any legislation to the contrary

standing repealed by operation of law by way of Section 50 of the

Advocates Act (1961).

Question 2 : Whether any legislation, whether subordinate or even

co-ordinate, that is in conflict with provisions of the Advocates Act

(1961) can stand after 15-06-2011 ?

Answer of the petitioner : No. Section 50 of the Advocates Act makes

that clear, that they all stand repealed.

36

16. That all that Rule 2(i) has done is to assist come local advocates in

selfishly forming some sort of club of exclusivity, to the detriment of their

brothers in the profession.

17. That insofar as Rule 4(i) is concerned, all that it has done is to have

pushed up the rents in the area delineated therein, and/or forced

advocates working therein to reduce their efficiency, by being forced to

spend on higher rents rather than on other inputs necessary for practice

of their profession, coupled with working in space more cramped than

that which they actually require.

18. That by restricting the ability of Advocates to discharge their duties with

“all 6 cylinders firing”, means that the objectives of the Court, which needs

as competent assistance as possible from its ‘Officers of the Court’, itself is

being compromised by this archaic, outdated Rule.

19. The purported acts and conducts of the Respondents as complained of

hereinabove are wholly without jurisdiction and/or authority of law, mala

fide, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unconstitutional, illegal, null and

void on the grounds afore-mentioned which are, without prejudice to each

other, summarized hereinafter :

GROUNDS

I. BECAUSE with Section 30 of the Advocates Act being notified with

effect from 15-06-2011, the petitioner has a right guaranteed to

him both by Section 30 of the Advocates Act and by Article

37

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to practice as an advocate

before any Court in India.

II. BECAUSE by notifying of Section 30 of the Advocate act, the entire

Act now stands notified. This being so, by virtue of Section 50 of

the aforesaid Act, any legislation to the contrary must bow in

interpretation to Section 30 read with Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution.

III. BECAUSE having one’s office in the confines of a boundary only

made sense in terms of cost and convenience of effecting service

for the other advocate. But now, with the advent of courier, fax,

email, etc, coupled with the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court set

out in the its judgement passed in the case of Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission vs. National Hydroelectric Power

Corporation Ltd & Ors (2010 10 SCC 280).

IV. BECAUSE – for example – the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has

complied with the aforesaid direction, and has enacted Rules titled

as “Delhi Courts Service of Processes by Courier, Fax and Electronic

Mail Service (Civil Proceedings) Rules, 2010”.

V. BECAUSE OF ANY OTHER GROUND contained in, or arising from

the pleadings, even if not specifically and / or formally couched

separately as a “ground”.

VI. BECAUSE OF ANY OTHER GROUND the petitioner, with due leave

of this Hon'ble Court, may wish to add in the pleadings.

38

VII. BECAUSE OF ANY OTHER GROUND the petitioner, with due leave

of this Hon'ble Court, may wish to add during oral arguments.

20. The Petitioner and the respondents have their place of residence or their

offices in Kolkata. A substantial part of the cause of action has arisen

within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

21. The petitioner has paid the requisite court fees on this petition.

22. The petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach

this Hon’ble court for the reliefs prayed for herein, and if the same are

granted, they shall be complete, and would afford complete redress.

23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, any further demand for justice

would be an idle and empty formality.

24. That the petitioner has not filed any such writ petition either before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or before any other

Hon’ble High Court for the same or similar reliefs on the issues raised

herein.

25. The records of the case are lying at the office of the Ld. Registrar (Origial

Side) and, as such, are within the Original Side Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

39

26. Unless orders as prayed for herein are made before the next date of listing

of CP No. 33 of 1988 (which is 10-02-2015), your petitioners would suffer

irreparable loss and injury.

27. This application is bona fide and made in the interest of justice.

28. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray Your Lordships for an order that:

a) Formalities as to service of the application as

per Rule 26 of the Writ Rules of the Original

Side of this Hon’ble Court be dispensed with;

b) Issue a writ of certiorari, and call for the

records of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in

relation to framing of Rule 2(i) of the Calcutta

High Court (Original Side) Rules (1914), and

certify the records either as correct or incorrect

in respect of modern / current needs of

exigencies of Practice and Procedure relating to

the practice of the profession of advocacy, and

if incorrect, strike down the aforesaid Rule as

being ultra vires, inter alia, Section 30 of the

Adsvocates Act read with Article 19(1)(g) of

the Constitution of India, coupled with Section

50 of the aforesaid Act.

In the alternative :

40

c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or such other

suitable writ , order or direction, whose effect

would be to compel the Respondent No. 1-2 to

interpret the phrase “…with the Bar Council of

West Bengal” in Rule 2(i) to read as “....with the

Bar Council of West Bengal, or such other Bar

Council as duly designated by the Bar Council of

India under the Advocates Act (1961).”

d) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus, or

such other suitable writ , order or direction,

whose effect would be to compel the

Respondent No. 1-2 to Frame suitable Rules

relating to effect service by courier, fax and

email, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission vs. National

Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd & Ors

(2010 10 SCC 280).

e) Issue a writ of certiorari, and call for the

records of the Calcutta High Court in relation to

framing of Rule 4 (i) of the Calcutta High Court

(Original Side) Rules (1914), and certify the

records either as correct or incorrect in respect

of modern / current needs of exigencies of

Practice and Procedure relating to the practice

41

of the profession of advocacy, and if incorrect,

strike down the aforesaid Rule as being ultra

vires, inter alia, Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India, read with prayer (b).

f) Rule NISI in terms of all the prayers above;

g) If no cause or insufficient cause be shown, the

Rule NISI be made absolute;

h) Ad interim prayers in terms of all the above.

i) Costs of and incidental to this application be

paid and/or compensated adequately,

efficaciously by the respondents, in line with

the norms laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar

Association.

j) Adequate efficacious compensation be directed

to be given by Respondents to make up/adjust

all consequent losses fully as suffered by the

petitioner in any manner.

k) Such further and/or other order or orders be

made and/or direction or directions be given as

to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit and proper.

42

AND YOUR PETITIONERS, AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.

I, Deepak Khosla, Petitioner and having my chamber at Suite No. 408, 4th Floor,

Center Point, 21 Old Court House Street (also known as Hemant Basu Sarani),

Kolkata -700 001, and residence at D – 367 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024,

presently at Kolkata, do hereby solemnly affirm and say that the statements

made in paras 1-27 of the foregoing petition are partly true to my knowledge

and those contained in paras 1-27 are partly based on documents,

correspondence, and/or records and/or informations received from statutory

bodies and colleagues which I verily believe to be true and those contained in

paras 1-27 are partly based on information received from the Office of Calcutta

High Court and/or records of or correspondence with Calcutta High Court which

I verily believe to be true and those in paras 1-27 and rest of the foregoing

petition are partly my humble submissions to this Hon’ble Court.

Solemnly affirmed by sd/-

Deepak Khosla on this day

of January, 2015 in the

Court House at Calcutta.

Before me.

Sd/-

COMMISSIONER

49 | P a g e

ANNEXURE 2

-49-

Deepak Khosla

Advocate

Bangalore Office : No.114 (Ground Fl`oor),

Kempaiah Building, First Main, First Cross

Karekal

Kamakshipalya

Old Gurupriya Kalyana Mantapa Road

BANGALORE 560 079

KARNATAKA * INDIA

New Delhi Office : D – 367 Defence Colony

NEW DELHI – 110 024

INDIA

Tel : +91 11 4109 9467

Fax : +91 11 4109 9467

Email : [email protected];

Cell : +91 99 530 96650

January 09th, 2015 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ld. Registrar (Original Side) Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta B. B. D. Bagh KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 700 001 SUBJECT : COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER I, RULES 2 &

3(i) OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (ORIGINAL SIDE) RULES, 1914

Dear Sir, I am an Advocate duly registered under the Advocates Act (1961) with the Bar Council of the State of Karnataka, and am addressing you this communication in pursuance of my intention to act in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, both on the Original Side, as well as on the Appellate Side, as well as in the subordinate courts below. Please note that by virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act (1961), and which Section has been notified by the Central Government from around 11-06-2011, I have a right to practice my profession throughout the territories to which the aforesaid Act extends. Therefore, by definition, this would include the State of West Bengal. For your ease of referral, the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act (1961) are reproduced below :

30. Right of advocates to practise


50 | P a g e

ANNEXURE 2

-50-

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends,--

(i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.

As you would appreciate, the Advocates Act (1961) is substantive legislation approved by the Parliament of the Union of India. Thus, it may be termed as superior legislation as compared to the rules of procedure framed, inter alia, by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in 1914. Though, with the advent of the Advocates Act (1961), especially with the notifying of its Section 30 from around 11-06-2011, I am under no obligation to comply with any provision of any (especially) subordinate legislation that is, or appears to be, in conflict with the aforesaid provisions, or places a road-block in the smooth implementation of the same, nonetheless, purely out of deference to the provisions still purported to be in vogue in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, I tender my compliance with Rule 2 and 3(i) of Chapter I of the Original Side Rules (albeit, under protest). COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2 I am registered with the Bar Council of Karnataka. My enrolment No. is KAR – 1280/2013. In evidence thereof, my Bar Enrolment Certificate is attached herewith. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4 My 2 addresses relating to discharge of my professional duties connected with the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta shall be as under : Mr. Deepak Khosla Advocate

At :

51 | P a g e

ANNEXURE 2

-51-

Suite No. 408, 4th Floor Center Point 21 Old Court House Street (also known as Hemant Basu Sarani) Kolkata -700 001

Also at : 1-B Judges Court Road And at : 2nd floor 7-C Kiran Sankar Roy Road KOLKATA 700 001

I crave leave to file evidence of these addresses, should you require me to do so. I hereby confirm that any notice, writ, summons, order or other document required to be served on me as an advocate acting on the Original Side, shall, if served upon me at any one of the above 2 office addresses, shall be deemed to have been properly served if served at the above addresses, or if left at the above addresses (in the unlikely event of my refusal to accept service of the same). You are requested to effectuate inclusion of my name in the relevant Register maintained by your office, as provided by Rule 2 of Chapter I of the Original Side Rules, 1914. As stated above, this compliance is under protest, as the Original Side Rules, in these respects, are in conflict with the Advocates Act, 1961, and the burden I have attempted to discharge by means of the present letter is without any legal obligation to do so. Yours faithfully, DEEPAK KHOSLA ADVOCATE Encl. : As above.

Writ 70 of 2015 - against Advocates Rules-1.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Writ 70 of 2015 - against Advocates Rules-1.pdf