Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)R.Swaminathan vs Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu on 31 July, 2014
4.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on
the decision of this Court in R. Swaminathan and another v. Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104 and another [2014-5-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/24
WP No. 25090 of 2012
LW.540], wherein, the petitioners, who are practicing as advocates, have
offered legal opinion in favour of a company based on which the company sold
its property to another company. The complainant was one of the shareholders
of the company which sold the property to the other company. According to
the complainant therein, based on the erroneous legal opinion tendered by the
petitioners/advocates, the property was sold by the company. This Court, while
allowing the writ petitions, held that the complainant was not the client of the
writ petitioners, while so, it is not open to him to make any complaint against
the writ petitioners; and when the clients of the petitioners are satisfied with
the professional service rendered by them, the complainant has no locus standi
to prefer the complaint. It was further held that when a complaint is made
against any advocate by a litigant alleging professional misconduct, it is open
to the Bar Council to consider at least, prima facie whether the allegations
constitute a professional or other misconduct. However, when such a
complaint was given by a person, who is not the client or in whose favour any
professional service has been rendered, then the Bar Council has no
jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.
Nandlal Khodidas Barot vs Bar Council Of Gujarat And Ors. on 24 September, 1980
In this regard, the learned senior counsel placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Khodidas
Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others [1980 (Supp) Supreme Court
Cases 318] wherein it was held that 'before referring the complaint against the
appellant therein to the disciplinary committee, the State Bar Council is
expected to apply its mind to the allegations in the complaint to prima facie
found that the case has to go before the disciplinary committee'. Whereas, in
the present case, the first respondent, without application of mind, has
mechanically referred the complaint given by the complainants to the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/24
WP No. 25090 of 2012
respondent / Disciplinary Committee, which is illegal and vitiated the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned senior
counsel submitted that the writ petition will have to be allowed by setting
aside the charges framed by the second respondent.
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since ... vs H.B.Shivakumar on 26 August, 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/24
WP No. 25090 of 2012
6.4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent that the first respondent referred the complaint dated 13.04.2010 to
the second respondent / disciplinary committee for enquiry and disposal by
resolution no.249/2011 dated 22.10.2011, which culminated in framing of
charges on 25.08.2012 itself. However, the petitioner filed this writ petition on
12.09.2012 and obtained an order of interim stay on 13.09.2012. After 12
years of filing the writ petition, the petitioner, as an after-thought, filed an
application to amend the prayer to call for the records relating to Resolution
No.249/2011 dated 22.10.2011 passed by the first respondent and subsequent
charge sheet dated 25.08.2012 framed in proceedings DCC No. 79 of 2012
pending before the second respondent / Disciplinary Committee-III, Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner,
in order to circumvent the proceedings, filed the writ petition to quash the
proceedings and miscellaneous petition for amendment, which would stand
testimony to the fact that the petitioner is not prepared to participate in the
enquiry that may be conducted by the second respondent and to prove his
innocence. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.C.Hanumanthappa v. H.B.Shivakumar [2015
(6) CTC 562 (SC)], wherein, it was held that a legal right accrued in favour of
the respondent by lapse of time, should not be taken away by way of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/24
WP No. 25090 of 2012
amendment. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and it has to be dismissed.
The Limitation Act, 1963
1