Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
E.Ramesh - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.30131 of 2022 and WMP.No.29568 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
PROHIBITION - ADVOCATES ACT - The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Bar Council in landlord-tenant disputes, emphasizing that such matters do not fall under the professional misconduct provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court highlighted the absence of a professional relationship and the lack of established misconduct, leading to the conclusion that the Bar Council's involvement was an abuse of legal process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to prohibit the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry from hearing a complaint related to a landlord-tenant dispute, asserting that there was no professional relationship or proven misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bar Council lacked jurisdiction over the matter as it pertained to a landlord-tenant dispute, which is outside the scope of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act.
Issues: Whether the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has jurisdiction to hear a complaint regarding a landlord-tenant dispute under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council's jurisdiction is limited to matters of professional misconduct and moral turpitude, which were not established in this case, thus rendering the complaint an abuse of process.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, prohibiting the Bar Council from hearing the complaint, with no costs awarded.
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 16.11.2022 under Section 36B of The Advocates Act. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to defend his case before the Bar Council of India.
2. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
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
