Allowed

Sri P B Reddy v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/4216/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash complaints against an advocate filed by his wife and mother-in-law. The Court held that individual marital and family disputes excluding professional misconduct fall outside the jurisdiction of the Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.161/2015 and DCE No.65/2016 filed by respondents before the Secretary Karnataka State Bar Council are quashed.

Sri P B Reddy Vs the Secretary — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37092 WP No. 4216 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4216 OF 2017 (GM-KSR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI P B REDDY S/O. LATE SIDDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.15-30-3 PADMAVATHI NAGAR, TIRUPATHI – 517 507 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD K.G.I.D. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 500 001.

¶14

SMT B.N. DEEPTHI W/O. SRI P B REDDY D/O. SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶15

SMT. SUMA W/O. SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF J. K. PURAM VILLAGE SRINIVASASANDRA POST,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37092 WP No. 4216 of 2017

¶18

BANGARAPET TALUK – 563 121 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT; SRI M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3–ABSENT)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD.21.8.2015 FILED BY THE R-2 & 3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, THEREBY SEEKING TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR COMMITTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND ALSO FOR CARRYING ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS WITHOUT LICENSE DURING PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE, IN COMPLAINT NO.161/2015 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS DCE NO.65/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.II VIDE ANNEX-A & B AND ETC,.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri Arun K. S., learned counsel for petitioner.

¶26

The present petition seeking to quash the

¶27

complaint dated 21.08.2015 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37092 WP No. 4216 of 2017

¶29

The petitioner is enrolled as an advocate before the Bar Council bearing enrollment No.Karnataka/ 128/2012. Respondent No.2 is wife and respondent No.3 is mother-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has preferred complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging various misconducts and pendency of proceedings before various forums. Respondent No.1 has entertained the complaint and issued notice.

¶30

Sri. Arun K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is married to respondent No.2. It is submitted that due to the pendency of matrimonial dispute proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner has preferred a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their family members. It is submitted that the present complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates’ Act does not allege any professional misconduct. The individual disputes between the petitioner

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:37092 WP No. 4216 of 2017

¶33

and his wife cannot be given colour of professional misconduct to invoke Section 35 of Advocates’ Act, 1961.

¶34

None appears for the respondents.

¶35

The complaint at Annexure-A, preferred by

¶36

respondent No.2 under Section 35 of the Advocates’ Act, would reveal that the entire allegations in the complaint are not relatable to the profession carried on by the petitioner. However, the allegations and the grievances raised in the complaint are related to marital disputes and other disputes among the family members of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are before the competent Courts for redressal of their individual disputes.

¶37

The continuation of the complaint before respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry on the matrimonial dispute would lead to creating another forum to deal with the individual disputes which is not intended.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37092 WP No. 4216 of 2017

¶39

8. Having regard to the nature of the disputes in

¶40

the complaint, the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry as contemplated under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961. The complaint and nature of allegations are beyond the scope of Section 35 of the Act. The complaint is not maintainable in the present form.

¶41

9. In light of the above, the following order:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) The complaint No.161/2015 and DCE No.65/2016 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 pending before respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri P B Reddy v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P B Reddy v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dyamavva K v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prabhakumar Ramiah Mysore Vs the Insurance Regulatory

Sri Sanath Semitha M Vs Recovery Officer/Authorized Officer

The Dargah Hazrath Kaspeer Vs Smt. Syedani Bee

Smt. N Sowmyashree Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B L Sheela Vs the Union of India