Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Naresh Dilawari – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council Of Punjab And Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the quashing of the complaint No.CC/162/2022 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'Om Parkash V/s Naresh Dilawari, Advocate'. The (supra) complaint became filed before DC VIII i.e. respondent No.2. He further seeks the quashing of the impugned notice dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) and of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The petitioner received notice dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.1, calling for reply/comments within fortnight, thus on a complaint filed by respondent No.4 (Om Parkash). The petitioner filed reply (Annexure P-3) which was duly received in the office of respondent No.1, and the petitioner received notice from respondent No.3 i.e. Disciplinary Committee VIII, asking the petitioner to appear before it, as the complaint titled 'Om Parkash V/s Naresh Dilawari', had been referred to it for hearing.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that there is no relationship of counsel and client between the petitioner and the complainant. In fact, the complainant is proxy of Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate who is blackmailing the petitioner, since the year
The Bar Council must form a 'reason to believe' before referring a case for disciplinary action to ensure valid complaints against advocates.
The court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
The Bar Council's authority to refer complaints for inquiry under Section 35 of the Advocates Act is affirmed, emphasizing the need for proper inquiry into allegations of misconduct.
(1) Professional misconduct by Advocate – Ordinarily, existence of a jural relationship between complainant and Advocate concerned is a precondition for invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the....
The court quashed disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer, finding the complaint to be frivolous and lacking merit, with no professional relationship between the complainant and the petitioner.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
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.
Professional misconduct by Advocate – No Advocate can be held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in complaint.
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
