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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
S.Manikandan - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary and ors – Respondents
WP.No.5495 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Baaskaran
For the Respondent: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - The court examined the authority of the Bar Council to entertain complaints against an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court. It highlighted that the Advocate Commissioner, as an officer of the court, must be subject to the court's jurisdiction for any grievances regarding their conduct, thus affirming the Bar Council's decision to reject the complaint as it lacked jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged Resolution No.388 of 2021 by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which rejected a complaint against the 2nd respondent, an Advocate Commissioner, for allegedly acting illegally by breaking into a temple and handing over keys without court permission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Bar Council lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the Advocate Commissioner, as any grievances should be addressed to the court that appointed the Commissioner. The court emphasized that the Advocate Commissioner is an officer of the court and any misconduct should be reported to the court.

Issues: Whether the Bar Council has the authority to investigate complaints against an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court, and whether the actions of the Advocate Commissioner constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council cannot entertain complaints regarding the conduct of an Advocate Commissioner, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the court that appointed the Commissioner. The appropriate course of action for the petitioner is to approach the court concerned.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, affirming the Bar Council's decision to reject the complaint.

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 been granted by the Civil Court in the Commissioner warrant. Thus, the 2nd respondent committed an illegality.

2. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit that the 2nd respondent performed his duties as an Advocate Commissioner in a Civil suit and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved from and out of any action of the Advocate Commissioner, he has to make a complaint to the Court concerned and the Bar Council cannot conduct an enquiry.

3. The Advocate Commissioner has been appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. The Advocate Commissioner is an officer of the Court. Even in case, an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court exceeded his/her limits, the objections if any by the parties to the suit has to be filed before the Court concerned for appropriate action. Contrarily, Bar Council cannot entertain such complaints related to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a Civil suit, unless such actions are directed to be initiated by the Court concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court concerned in the pending suit. The Bar Council has rightly rejected the complaint submitted by the petitioner for initiation of action for his conduct.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.

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