S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
S. Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the Resolution No.388 of 2021 dated 30.07.2021, on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable and further direct the first respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent herein based on the Complaint No.332 of 2020 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case.
The Resolution No.388 of 2021 dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N.Baaskaran would submit that the 2nd respondent was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner by the learned VII Assistant City Civil Court in O.S.No.2261 of 2019. The 2nd respondent acted illegally, break open the temple and entered into the premises and handed over the key to the plaintiff in the suit. Pertinently, no such permission has b
The Bar Council does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints against an Advocate Commissioner; such complaints must be addressed to the court that appointed the Commissioner.
The necessity to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters concerning the Bar Council's decisions.
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.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
A prima facie opinion by the Bar Council is not subject to judicial review unless it is shown to be issued by an incompetent authority or is tainted with malafides.
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 court affirmed that the Bar Council's prima facie opinion is not subject to routine judicial review, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee.
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.
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....
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.
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.