Disposed

Michael Selvaraju. a v. the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry

Madras HC12 Nov 2021WP(MD)/20307/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a disciplinary enquiry notice. The Court held that the petition is maintainable only after the enquiry under Section 35 of the Advocates Act concludes. The petitioner was granted liberty to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the scheduled date or an alternate date if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the writ petition, allowed an alternate date for appearance before the Disciplinary Committee, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

Michael Selvaraju. a Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.20307 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE THIRU.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20307 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16969 of 2021

¶7

A.Michael Selvaraju ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1)The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶10

2)H.Jesuharan Soloman

¶11

3)J.Macklin Abraham Navamani ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice in Confl.No.3137 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021 issued in the proceedings in D.C.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian

¶14

For R1 : Mr.Chandrasekaran for Mr.Nirajan S.Kumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by

¶17

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶18

The petitioner is an Advocate, who has challenged the enquiry notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee-VIII of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry in D.C.C.No.8 of 2021. The enquiry is posted today(12.11.2021) by 03.00 p.m.

¶19

Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised very many grounds, including that there is no jural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relationship of lawyer and client, all those questions have to be

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P(MD)No.20307 of 2021

¶22

gone into only after enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee, mentioned supra. The action is initiated under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the same cannot be challenged. The petitioner is at liberty to make all his submissions/objections etc., in this regard, by appearing in person, before the Disciplinary Committee, as the date of hearing is today. In the event, he is unable to reach the Bar Council at Chennai, today, the respondent Bar Council is directed to give him an alternate date, to enable him to appear before them.

¶23

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

bala

¶29

¶30

1)The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai.

¶31

W.P(MD)No.20307 of 2021 DATED : 12.11.2021

¶32

RK/SKN(24/11/2021) 2P 2C

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

2/2

Michael Selvaraju. a v. the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Selvaraju. a v. the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry

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

The District Elementary Educational Officer Vs G. Queen

Rajangam, Vs the Union of India

Sivalingam Vs the District Collector

P.Murugesan, Vs N.Murugesan

Smt.Jeyarathinam @ Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer