Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
T.Thirunavukkarasu - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.16457 of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024
Writ Petition - Bar Council Complaint - The court held that the petitioner must exhaust the appeal remedy before the Bar Council of India as provided under the Advocates Act, since the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu found no prima facie case in the complaint against the Advocate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against an Advocate for receiving Rs.34,000/- without instituting any litigation. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dismissed the complaint, finding no prima facie case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner has the option to appeal the Bar Council's decision to the Bar Council of India, as the Advocates Act provides for such a remedy.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can challenge the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu's resolution in a writ petition or must appeal to the Bar Council of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the Bar Council of India as mandated by the Advocates Act.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the Bar Council of India, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent vide proceedings Confl.5133 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to punish the 2nd respondent for her conduct and to repay the sum of Rs.34,000/- to petitioner.
The resolution passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in complaint No.185 of 2022 is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.
2. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the Bar Council against an Advocate for receiving a sum of Rs.34,000/- from the petitioner and the Advocate has not instituted any litigation. However, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu closed the complaint, as they found no prima facie case in the complaint.
3. In such circumstances, the aggrieved person has to prefer an appeal before the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act. Since an appeal remedy is contemplated, it is to be exhausted in the manner contemplated. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Bar Council of India challenging the resolution passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
4. With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
The necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
The court affirmed that the Bar Council's decision to drop a complaint is valid and that aggrieved parties have the right to seek further recourse through established legal channels.
Judicial review by the High Court does not extend to adjudicating the merits of disciplinary complaints against lawyers, which must be handled by the Bar Council.
The transfer of complaints under Section 36B of The Advocates Act to the Bar Council of India is a procedural safeguard that allows for proper adjudication of grievances against advocates.
The transfer of a disciplinary complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of The Advocates Act allows the complainant to pursue their case in the appropriate legal forum.
The necessity to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking judicial review in disciplinary matters under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The transfer of a complaint to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act establishes the appropriate jurisdiction for disciplinary matters involving advocates.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 establishes a mandatory appellate process to the Supreme Court for aggrieved parties in Bar Council proceedings, which must be adhered to instead of seeking wri....
A writ of Mandamus is not necessary when the complainant has the option to pursue the matter before a different authority, as per the provisions of the Advocates Act.
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
