Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
H. Manjunath – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council – Respondent
ORDER
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 05.11.2023 and consequent Notification dated 23.11.2023 passed by the first respondent-Karnataka State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council' for short) suspending the petitioner from practising in any Courts of the country.
2. Heard Sri H.Manjunath, petitioner-in-person, learned counsel Sri. Nataraj .G appearing for first respondent/Council and learned counsel Sri. Mahesh Arkalgud appearing for second respondent/complainant.
3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, who claims to have set-up his practice and is practising in several Courts of the country. The issue relates to a complaint being filed by second respondent against certain alleged activities of the petitioner, which would touch upon sexual harassment of second respondent, by the petitioner. Several instances of messages being sent or whatsapp messages being sent to the complainant, form the fulcrum of the complaint. The complaint was registered on 02.09.2023 by the second respondent. The complaint was numbered as C-164/2023. The petitioner was issued a notice on 21.09.2023. After receipt of notice from the ha
The court established that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against advocates, ensuring that they are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves bef....
Point of Law : It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judici....
The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principle....
An external member of an Internal Complaints Committee does not constitute a client-advocate relationship; therefore, allegations of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act are unfounded.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court upheld the Bar Council's authority to suspend an advocate's practice during disciplinary proceedings based on serious criminal allegations, emphasizing the need for maintaining professional....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
