SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 653

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
M.A. Nithyananda Ekavathi Advocate
Versus
Srinath Sridevan Advocate HSB Partners & Others
C.S. No. 579 of 2012 & Application Nos. 4998 & 4773 of 2012
Decided on: 30-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: No appearance.
For the Respondents:M/s. S.K. Rajagopal, Mohan, C. Ramesh, AR.L. Sundaresan, Advocates.

A suit for damages cannot be maintained for a wrong done to another person, and a court cannot restrain a statutory authority from performing its statutory duty.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE - SUIT FOR DAMAGES - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CAUSE OF ACTION - BAR OF LAW - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 41 - JURISDICTION OF COURT - STATUTORY AUTHORITY - ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION - FAMILY COURT - RULES FRAMING.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, an advocate, filed a suit against 15 defendants, including the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, seeking damages for defamation, mental torture, monetary loss, physical torture, and threats to her practice. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to collapse the cases of one Mrs. Visalakshi, whom the plaintiff represented, and that the Bar Council failed to take action against the defendants despite complaints filed by the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the defendants and that the relief claimed by the plaintiff was barred under law. The court held that the plaintiff could not claim damages for the wrong done to Mrs. Visalakshi, and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss complaints that had resulted in a final order. The court also held that the Bar Council could not be restrained from performing its statutory duty, and that the court could not issue a general direction to the Family Court to obtain consent from party-counsel before issuing order copies in disposed of cases.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the defendants? 2. Whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff was barred under law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against the defendants because the plaintiff could not claim damages for the wrong done to Mrs. Visalakshi, and because the court did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss complaints that had resulted in a final order. 2. The court held that the relief claimed by the plaintiff was barred under law because the Bar Council could not be restrained from performing its statutory duty, and because the court could not issue a general direction to the Family Court to obtain consent from party-counsel before issuing order copies in disposed of cases.

Final Decision: The court allowed the defendants' applications and rejected the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action and being barred under law.

JUDGMENT

1. Application No.4988 of 2012 has been moved by defendant No.15, Mr. Dakshinamoorthy, Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.579 of 2012. Application No.4773 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant/defendant No.9 for rejection of plaint with exemplary costs on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit as framed is barred under law.

2. The plaintiff/non-applicant has filed a suit against 15 defendants praying therein,

(1) for damages of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs only) on account of the defamation, disturbing her work, mental torture, monetary loss, physical torture and threat to her practice;

(2) directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry to dismiss the complaint 67/2010 filed by the seventh defendant against the plaintiff pending before the Disciplinary Committee No.III (D.C.C.No.80/2011) and also to cancel the order dated 23-12-2011 and all further proceedings (this relief has been rendered infructuous as it is pointed out that disciplinary proceedings are over in which the plaintiff/non-applicant has been held guilty of misconduct);

(3) for directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry to reject any complaints which may come against an Advocate before the Council when the Advocate becomes a party-in-person for his own case and that itself is pending before any Court if the complainant is having more opportunity to represent her difficulties before that Court by himself or through his lawyer;

(4) to exercise the inherent power to direct the Family Court to get consent from the party's advocates when the party applies for certified copy for the disposed of cases; and

(5) a prayer to pay the cost of the suit.

3. It would be appropriate to record the pleadings in the plaint to understand the case of the plaintiff :

"3. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the present advocate of the 7th defendant's Co-sister Mrs. Visalakshi who was introduced by the 7th defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the 7th defendant's erstwhile advocate.

The 1st defendant was the said Mrs. Visalakshi's erstwhile advocate who she herself contacted through on line and he was the first person to collapse the said Mrs. Visalakshi's Chennai High Court Partition suit.

The 2nd defendant was the said Mrs. Visalakshi's erstwhile advocate who was introduced by the 1st defendant when she came to Chennai from Canada and he was the partner advocate to the 1st defendant.

The 3rd defendant was the said Mrs. Visalakshi's erstwhile advocate who was introduced by the 7th defendant to the said Mrs. Visalakshi but she was a pre-arranged advocate by the defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 10, 12 & 14 appointed only for the purpose of collapsing the said Mrs. Visalakshi's cases and case bundles.

The 4th defendant is the said Mrs. Visalakshi's brother-in-law and the7th defendant's husband and he already collapsed the said Mrs. Visalakshi's family in Canada by giving ill-advice to his own brother i.e. the said Mrs. Visalakshi's husband the 6th defendant herein and also he is giving heavy pressure to the 1st and 5th defendants by using his relationship and money power with them so that no one represents for Mrs. Visalakshi before the Indian Courts and now the 4th defendant and his family only is using the said Mrs. Visalakshi's husband's money, later the 4th defendant wants to possess all properties belonging to his own brother.

The 5th defendant is close relative of 4th and 6th defendant and his family never like the said Mrs. Visalakshi and her parents family.

The 6th defendant is the said Mrs. Visalakshi's husband and 4th defendant's own brother and 7th defendant's brother-in-law.

The 7th defendant is 4th defendant's wife and also the 8th defendant's mother and the said Mrs. Visalakshi's close relative and also the 7th defendant is having internal jealousy on the said Mrs. Visalakshi's beauty, hard work, honesty and intelligence and her education























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top