Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ
R. Rajesh Advocate – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31852 of 2017 | WMP.Nos.35008 and 35009 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh
For the Respondents: Dr. V. Venkatesan, Mr. S.R. Raghunathan
The National Company Law Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to impose a dress code for advocates, which is regulated solely by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act.
Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 34 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Challenge to the imposition of a dress code by National Company Law Tribunal - The Tribunal's order dated 14.11.2017 was found to lack jurisdiction and was deemed illegal, as only High Courts can regulate dress code under the Advocates Act - The power under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules does not extend to prescribing a dress code contrary to Bar Council rules. (Paras 5, 11, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction - High Courts retain authority over rules concerning advocates - Judicial review enables High Courts to challenge Tribunal orders lacking authority.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an advocate, challenged a dress code order imposed by the National Company Law Tribunal, asserting it was ultra vires the Advocates Act and lacking jurisdiction since it conflicted with the Bar Council's prescribed rules. The Tribunal had previously issued a similar code, which was deemed ungrounded.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the imposition of a dress code by the NCLT was without authority, affirming that the applicable rules governing advocates' attire are provided by the Bar Council and adopted by the High Courts. Hence, the impugned order was quashed as it was contrary to established statutes and rules.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the National Company Law Tribunal had the authority to impose a dress code for advocates, which was contended against the legislative framework established by the Advocates Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dress code imposed by the NCLT was beyond its statutory powers and that the High Courts alone have jurisdiction to regulate such matters, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions established for advocates' conduct in courts.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the nclt and petitioner's grievance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's contention against dress code regulation (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial and statutory powers over dress codes (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. jurisdiction of high courts and tribunals (Para 7) |
| 5. judicial review of tribunal decisions (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. legality of the impugned dress code order (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. withdrawal of the impugned order and its relevance (Para 13) |
| 8. final ruling on the writ petition (Para 14) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J) We have heard the petitioner as party-in-person and the learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials placed.
2.The petitioner is an advocate practicing in the Courts and Tribunals at Chennai, including the second respondent/Tribunal. He is also a member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. He has come forward with this Public Interest Litigation for a writ of declaration to declare the Order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the second respondent, insofar as it relates to imposition of dress code for advocates for appearance before the Tribunal. For ready reference, the order dated 14.11.2017, which is impugned in this writ petition, is extracted below:
"In addition to the dress code already approved vide order dated 02.08.2016, wearing of gown would be necessary w.e.f. 20th November 2017 in all the benches of NCLT for Hon'ble President, Members and Advocates.
2. The dress code for other Authorised Representatives and parties in person shall remain same as issued vide Order dated 02.08.2016."
3.(i) According to the petitioner, the National Company Law Tribunal (“the Tribunal or NCLT”) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT or the Appellate Tribunal”) were constituted under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Tribunal started functioning from 01.06.2016. Hitherto, Company Law Tribunal (CLB) was in existence from 1991 to 2016 until the constitution of the Tribunal on 01.06.2016. Upon constitution, the Tribunal exercises similar powers as that of the CLB in addition to the powers as conferred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It is further stated by the petitioner that the Central Government constituted the Tribunal with an objective to dispose of cases relating to company matters expeditiously and to replace the erstwhile CLB and Board for Industrial and Financial Resconstruction (BIFR) besides the powers that were exercised by this Court under the Company Law jurisdiction. Thus, after the constitution of the Tribunal, CLB was dissolved and all the matters pending before the CLB were transferred to the Tribunal. Consequently, the judicial members from legal profession and technical members from other professions like Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries etc. have been appointed and hence, the Tribunal is a quasi judicial authority administered by judicial and technical members. Above all, as per Section 427 of the , the President, Members, Officers and other employees of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the Chairperson, Members, Officers and other employees of the Appellate Tribunal are also deemed to be public servants.
(ii) The petitioner as party-in-person further stated that the constitution of the Tribunal / Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP No. 2198 of 2003 ( Madras Bar Association v. Union of India , (2004) 59 CLA 417 ) and it went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [(2010) 96 CLA 222 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court uphold the decision of the Madras High Court that the creation of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and vesting in them, the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in regard to company, law matters, are not unconstitutional and tha
