S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
T. Thirunavukkarasu – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry – Respondent
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 pass
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.