https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292793 The article addresses forum competence for a petition challenging Original Side rules and the refusal of the Assistant Master to receive a company petition. It explains that the decisive question was where the subject matter substantially arose: the petitioner resided and practised in Bombay, the impugned order was made there by an officer of the same High Court, and the grievance concerned the alleged denial of the right to practise on the Original Side in Bombay. Article 227 was treated as inapplicable because the Assistant Master was not a subordinate court or tribunal, and reliance on Article 226 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act did not change the nature of the dispute. The petition was therefore held to lie on the Original Side, not the Appellate Side. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:40:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292793 The article addresses forum competence for a petition challenging Original Side rules and the refusal of the Assistant Master to receive a company petition. It explains that the decisive question was where the subject matter substantially arose: the petitioner resided and practised in Bombay, the impugned order was made there by an officer of the same High Court, and the grievance concerned the alleged denial of the right to practise on the Original Side in Bombay. Article 227 was treated as inapplicable because the Assistant Master was not a subordinate court or tribunal, and reliance on Article 226 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act did not change the nature of the dispute. The petition was therefore held to lie on the Original Side, not the Appellate Side. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292793