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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 647

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
P. Balasubramaniyan - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar (Judicial) & Another - Respondent
W.A. (MD). SR. No. 30600 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Balasubramaniyan, In person.

Headnote:

Maintainability - Advocate - IPC 1860, Cr.P.C. 1973 - [MISCONDUCT] - [JUDICIAL DECORUM] - [ARTICLE 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 219, 220 of IPC 1860]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Advocate, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs against multiple judicial authorities. The court dismissed the writ petition at the stage of maintainability and imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 to the Legal Services Authority, with a direction to take disciplinary action against the appellant for filing a vexatious petition and disregarding judicial decorum.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant, despite being an Advocate, exhibited rash behavior, made wild and baseless allegations, and filed reckless pleadings, disregarding decency and decorum. The court upheld the objections raised by the Registry and rejected the writ petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the appellant, the conduct of the appellant as an Advocate, and the appropriateness of the prayers sought by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for Advocates to adhere to high standards of behavior and courteous conduct, and to uphold the rule of law. The court also highlighted the inappropriateness of the appellant's actions and prayers, leading to the rejection of the writ petition.

Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition and upheld the objections raised by the Registry, emphasizing the need for Advocates to maintain decorum and adhere to professional ethics.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The appellant is the party-in-person and also an Advocate [Enrollment No.1395/2016] practising here.

2. The appellant/party-in-person filed W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017 for the following reliefs:

“(1) to call for all the records from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, Karur District pertaining to the cause in C.M.P.No.127/2007 and quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2007 and quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2007 of the R4 herein and punish the R4 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;

(2) to call for the records from the court of the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Karur, Karur District pertaining to the Criminal Revision Case No. 29/2007 and 28/2007 and quash the impugned order dated 29.04.2008 in C.R.C. No. 29/2007 and dated 12.12.2007 in C.R.C.No. 28/2007 of the R5 herein and punish the R5 herein U/Articel 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec.166, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;

(3) to call for the records from the Registrar, Madras High Court, Chennai pertaining to the Notification No. 26/89 in R.O.C. No. 92/88. Con.B-2, dated 09.02.1989 and revise the impugned portion of the notification as to, “they can exercise the powers of the Judicial Magistrate of the 2nd class and try the IPC offences which are triable by any Magistrate only as shown in the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973 of India” instead of, “They can exercise all powers of the Judicial Magistrate of first class under the said Code, “and to direct the Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennnai to send the revised notification to all the concern and punish the R6 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166,167, 197 IPC 1860;

(4) to call for the records from the Madurai Bench of Madras High court pertaining to the cause in W.P.(MD) No. 10170/2008 and in Crl.O.P.No. 11247/2008 and quash the ultra vires proceedings and impugned order dated 12.11.2008 of the R8 herein in W.P.(MD) No. 10170/2008 and the ultra vires proceedings and impugned order dated 24.11.2008 of R9 herein and that dated 03.02.2014 of the R11 and R12 in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 11247/2008 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 1/2008 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11247/2008 and punish the R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12 herein U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166 in common and R8, R9, R10, R11 and R12 u/s 219 of IPC 1860;

(5) to call for the records from the records form the court of JM No. II Kulithalai in Karur District pertaining to the cause in C.C.No. 132/2008 and quash the ultra vires proceedings of the R2 and R3, R7, R12 and R13 herein and punish them U/Article 20(1) of the Constitutional of India, 1950 r/w Sec. 166, 217, 218, 219 and 220 of IPC 1860;

(6) to direct the Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, to place the 1 to 10 kinds of cases before the competent bench in compliance of the Judicial order of the division bench dated 10.09.2013 in W,P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 and 8882/2008 viz.,

(i). The Cause in S.C.No. 28/2009 of Karur Sessions Division from the court of Sessions (FTMC), Karur District and in the Court of Principal District and sessions Judge, Karur District and with the Chairman of the Legal Services authority, District Court Building, Karur, Karur District;

(ii). My Complaint Petition dated 29.10.2007 to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court;

(iii). My Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 pending in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court;

(iv). My Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No. 8882/2008 pending in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court;

(v). My Writ Petition M.P.(MD) No. 2/2008 in W.P.(MD) No. 1619/2006 rightly allowed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court comprised of Hon'ble Justices, Thiru.P.K.Mishra J and Thiru K.Kannan J on 29.09.2008. But wrongly and improperly disposed of by the Division Bench of Comprised of Hon'ble Justices Thiru K.Ravi Raja Pandian J and Thiru P.P.S.Janathana Raja J, on 13.10.2008;

(vi). My Review Application












































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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