Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
E. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent / Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry from hearing the complaint in DCC No.192 of 2021 on its file, filed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein seeking to evict the petitioner in a purely landlord-tenant dispute, wherein there is no professional relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has not established any proven misconduct or moral turpitude in a manner known to law without even issuing a legal notice or a written request or even a Whatsapp or text message over mobile phone to the petitioner / tenant to vacate the premises or by approaching any Court of law is an abuse of the legal process and the same is not within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu would submit the petitioner is a complainant. The case of the petitioner has been transferred to the Bar Council of India on 1
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry does not have jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes as they do not involve professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.
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.
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.
The Bar Council is mandated to investigate complaints against advocates and enforce prohibitory orders to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
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.
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.
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.
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.
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.
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
