The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Delhi to entertain complaints regarding misconduct of advocates under the Indian Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 35.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by four lawyers challenging the impugned notices issued by the Bar Council of Delhi (hereinafter "BCD") dated 13th February, 2023 calling upon the Petitioners to be present in person on 24th February, 2023 at 4.00 pm at the BCD's office. The notice reads as under:

"Sir/Madam,

Bar Council of Delhi in its meeting held on 06th February, 2023 considered the above cited subject.

(Copy enclosed)

You are hereby directed to file your reply (25 copies) on receipt of this notice with an advance copy to the complainant and you are further directed to be present in person on 24th February, 2023 at 4.00 PM, (Friday) in the office of the Bar Council of Delhi at 2/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110 049, failing which matter will be proceeded ex-parte in your absence and necessary action as per law will be taken."

3. The said notice also calls upon the Petitioners to file a reply (25 copies) giving advance copy to the Complainant.

4. The notices which are under challenge by the Petitioners are pursuant to a complaint filed by the authorised representative of Respondent No. 2- Mr. Anand Datwani who is present in Court. The concerned complaint was filed on 13th January, 2023.

5. The submission of ld. Sr. Counsels appearing for the Petitioners is that the present complaint of which the BCD has taken cognisance of, is the second complaint on the same allegations. The first complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 9th November, 2022. In the said complaint, the BCD had taken the following decision:

"Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Hony. Secretary of the Council recused himself and did not participate in the present matter.

Present complainant in person. He made submissions at length. Complaint perused. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent, basically on the ground that one Mr. Janak Datwani, who had no authority on behalf of their company, authorized the respondents to contest the cases which is legally incorrect. All these matters are sub-judice and the key issue lies is whether or not Mr. Datwani was debarred by the company. It is a management issue among themselves. There is no case of misconduct made out on the part of the respondent, at this stage. However, the complainant is at liberty to press the issue before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The complaint is accordingly dismissed."

6. However, thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the ld. Trial Court by way of an application wherein the trial court dealing with CC No. 10733/2021 titled State v. Janak Datwani which is a criminal complaint, in an application filed by C.N.A Exports Pvt. Ltd. passed the following order:

"It is stated by Counsel for complainant/applicant that in order dated 27.10.2022 it has been recorded that Ms. Mansi Mridula Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Alok Saxena; Ms. Aastha Baderia, Advocate and Ms. Malvika Chaudhary, Advocate have not placed any vakalatnama on record for appearing on behalf of accused and have been attending the Court without any agency or authority to pursue the matter on behalf of accused and there is no vakalatnama in their favour. It is stated that on 02.06.2022, Mr. Alok Saxena, Advocate filed an application not signed by the accused for cancellation of NBWs, without vakalatnama. Advocate Aastha Baderia conducted file inspection on 17.08.2022 and an application, seeking discharge of advocate Ms. Mansi Mridula Sharma was on 27.10.2022 without any authority. Such acts on behalf of Advocates appearing for accused are serious and acts of professional misconducts under Indian Advocates Act and are also not as per the practice directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that complaints were filed against said Advocates before Bar Council of Delhi and said complaint was dismissed. The complainant/applicant wants to press this issue before the Court in the absence of BCD hav