TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petition was competent on the Appellate Side of the High Court or was liable to be heard on the Original Side because the subject-matter substantially arose within Greater Bombay.
Analysis: The petition challenged the Original Side rules and the refusal of the Assistant Master to receive a company petition. The decisive question was where the matter in dispute substantially arose. The Court held that the petitioner resided and practised in Bombay, the impugned order was made in Bombay by an officer of the same High Court, and the grievance centered on the alleged denial of the right to practise on the Original Side in Bombay. Article 227 was held inapplicable because the Assistant Master was not a subordinate court or tribunal for that purpose, and the proposed reliance on Article 226 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 did not alter the real nature of the dispute. The challenge to the rules therefore remained anchored in Bombay, making the Appellate Side forum unavailable.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection was upheld and the petition was held to be entertainable only on the Original Side, not on the Appellate Side.
TaxTMI 
