Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA
Satya Prakash Ravidas – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Bar Council Of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing both petitions together due to common issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s prayers in the respective petitions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues related to the authority of representatives of rvk. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 13) |
| 4. concerns about the legitimacy of authority within rvk. (Para 9 , 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. engagement of advocates by unauthorized individuals. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. repeated attempts to re-litigate settled issues. (Para 25 , 34 , 37) |
| 7. jurisdiction of bar council and validity of previous complaints. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. conclusive dismissal of the petitions on merits. (Para 45 , 47 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
1. At the outset, it is noted that both petitions arise from overlapping causes of action and involve common issues. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to hear and adjudicate both petitions together.
2. In W.P. (C) 10990 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –
“a) Issue a writ of 'quo warranto' calling upon Respondent No.2 to show under what authority she claims to represent Raj Vidya Kender in legal proceedings including CS (OS) 470/2019, despite the absence of a valid resolution or governing body authorization;
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....
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....
Disputes arising from the internal management of a registered society are not justiciable in writ jurisdiction and must be resolved in a competent civil court.
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 right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
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
