Dismissed

K.Sathyabal v. Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Jun 2016REV.APLW/58/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court rejected review applications filed against earlier writ orders dismissing complaints regarding non-availability of plea of self-defence and non-provision of cell phones by Bar Councils, holding such reviews were not maintainable as they sought re-arguing of merits. The Court also rejected the request to change the enquiry venue from Bangalore to Chennai, noting the enquiry wa

What did the court decide?

Review applications closed; request for change of venue dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Sathyabal Vs Bar Council of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Rev. Apln. (W) Nos.58 to 61 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.14523 to 14526 of 2016

¶8

K.Sathyabal .. Applicant in Rev.A.No.58 of 2016 R.Y.George Williams .. Applicant in Rev.A.No.59 of 2016 R.Prasadh .. Applicant in Rev.A.No.60 of 2016 U.Rajarajan .. Applicant in Rev.A.No.61 of 2016

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry by its Secretary,

¶11

High Court Campus, Chennai - 104.

¶12

2.D.Selvam, Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104.

¶13

3.Bar Council of India by its Secretary,

¶14

¶15

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶16

4.Mannan Kumar Misra, Chairman, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶17

5.Karnataka State Bar Council Secretary, Old K.G.I.D. Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶18

.. Respondents in all the Review Applications

¶19

Review Application preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. against the order of this Court made in W.P.Nos.499, 500, 501 and 502 of 2016 dated 21.03.2016.

¶20

For Applicant : Ms.S.Meenakshi in all the Review Applications For Respondents : Ms.M.Srividhya for R1 in all the Review Applications Mr.S.Y.Masood for R2 in all the Review Applications Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for R3 in all the Review Applications

¶21

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶24

These Review Applications are filed by raising very many grounds on merits which, in effect, are nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter on merits once again. Needless to say that such attempt is not the scope for the review jurisdiction.

¶25

2.Learned counsel appearing for the applicants sought the change of venue of enquiry from Bangalore to Chennai however by the same Karnataka State Bar Council.

¶26

3.In view of the detailed order passed in the writ petitions by this court on 21.03.2016 and in view of the order today passed by us extending the time for completion of the enquiry by six weeks and also by taking note of the fact that the enquiry is going on at Bangalore, we do not propose to entertain these review applications and also the request made by the applicants for change of the venue. Accordingly, these review applications stand closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

¶28

(M.M.S.J.) (K.R.C.B.J.) 27.06.2016

¶29

mmi

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104.

¶32

2.The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus,

¶33

Chennai - 104.

¶34

3.The Secretary, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶35

4.The Chairman, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶36

5.Karnataka State Bar Council

¶37

Secretary, Old K.G.I.D. Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶38

¶39

M.M.SUNDRESH, J and K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J

¶40

mmi

¶41

Rev. Apln. (W) Nos.58 to 61 of 2016

¶42

27.06.2016

K.Sathyabal v. Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sathyabal v. Bar Council of Tamilnadu

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

M/S. Raj Granites, Vs the Authorized Officer

Maripeddi Neeharika Vs The Secretary

T.Ramadoss, Vs The Chairman

N.Balamurugan, S/o.Nadessin, Vs The Secretary