Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Jayna Kothari D/o Pankaj L. Kothari – Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the complaint. (Para 2) |
ORDER :
“A. Issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the Respondent No.2 from proceeding with complaint bearing No. 109/2019 (now numbered as D.C.E. No. 66/2022) filed by the Respondent No.1 herein against the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 Karnataka State Bar Council, produced herein as ANNEXURE-H.
C. Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notice dated 17.7.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 KSBC, in complaint bearing No. 109/2019 now numbered as D.C.E. No. 66/2022 produced herein as ANNEXURE-R.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
2.2. On 23-05-2019, a complaint of sexual harassment in the Company is made by a female employee against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was an employee of the Company. In the complaint certain allegations were made against the 1st respondent which would touch upon the ingredients of sexual harassment. Following the receipt of the complaint, the Committee sent a notice to the 1st respondent through an electronic mail directing him to submit his response to the complaint within 10 days, as requi
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.
(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....
The court reaffirmed that the authority to question the representation of a society lies within civil proceedings, and recurrent petitions that reiterate previously dismissed issues constitute misuse....
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.
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
The need for evidence to prove good faith and the limitations of absolute privilege in criminal defamation cases.
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
