Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Paras Jain, S/o. Late Sri. P. Bhawarlal Dhariwal – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council, Represented By Its Chairman – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru (‘the Bar Council’ for short) and seeks quashment of the complaint so registered before the Bar Council by the 2nd respondent.
2. Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Bangalore for the last 44 years. The petitioner becomes a counsel for the decree holder Sri Jinender Kumar Gandhi and his family members in Execution Case Nos.458 of 2007 and 459 of 2007 which were at that point in time pending before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. In the Execution petitions, the 2nd respondent/A. Ramachadnra Reddy is the Judgment Debtor No.3, against whom decree of possession had been passed in O.S.Nos. 9077 of 1996 and 9078 of 1996, along with two other Judgment Debtors who were his parents. The decree was passed on 21-12-2006 and the appeal filed against the said decree by the Judgment Debtors before this Court comes to be rejected in the year 2009. The Judgment Debtors then challenge the decree before the Apex Court, which also comes to be dismissed in the year 2010. The d
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.
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.
The Bar Council can initiate disciplinary action based on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or a formal complaint without infringing on an advocate's rights until a final order is made.
(1) Professional misconduct by Advocate – Ordinarily, existence of a jural relationship between complainant and Advocate concerned is a precondition for invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the....
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
Claims for unpaid legal fees by an Advocate must be pursued in civil courts, and attempts to halt legal proceedings over fee disputes violate the ethics and dignity of the profession.
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
