Disposed

Vaithiyanathan v. the Secretary

Madras HC19 Sept 2023WP/22329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition seeking directions to the Bar Council regarding allegations of double claims by advocates. Noting insufficient material, lack of specific details, and an Expert Committee report not indicting 111 advocates, the Court declined to take specific action and directed the petitioner to approach the Bar Council for instances noticed.

What did the court decide?

no order as to costs; petitioner directed to approach the Bar Council for immediate action on instances of misconduct noticed.

Vaithiyanathan Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶9

Vaithiyanathan .. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Secretary The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry NSC Bose Road Chennai 600 104.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's various representations dated 24.11.2020, 02.01.2021, 23.11.2022 and 02.02.2023 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Fernandez

¶15

For the Respondent : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶21

We have heard Mr.A.Fernandez, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The petitioner seeks a direction to the Bar Council to take action against the advocates against whom allegations of misconduct for filing double claims are made.

¶23

We had called for the report from the respondent as to the steps taken pursuant to the Expert Committee's opinion.

¶24

Today, the Bar Council has placed on record the report about the steps undertaken. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a complaint which was returned back as it was not in proper form and containing necessary particulars. The petitioner re-submitted the complaint, however, in the same manner, without correcting the defects.

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶28

We do not find the report of the Expert Committee indicts 111 advocates. The Expert Committee has indicted only seven advocates against whom Bar Council has taken action by suspending two advocates from practice with cost of Rs.5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh only), reprimanding four advocates with cost of Rs.3.00 lakh (three lakh only) and finding one advocate not guilty of professional misconduct.

¶29

There is no concrete material on record before us to take a decision as to the involvement of a particular advocate. Only statement may not be sufficient. Even the Expert Committee report does not indict 111 advocates, as suggested by the petitioner. If there some documents would have been placed on record that could have been considered. It has been suggested that in many cases, though double claims were made, they were withdrawn later. In the absence of details, it will not be possible for us to pass a specific order. However, if any instance of misconduct is noticed, the petitioner can approach the Bar Council for necessary action immediately.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶33

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

There will be no order as to costs.

¶35

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 19.09.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶36

kpl

¶37

¶38

The Secretary The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry NSC Bose Road Chennai 600 104.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

¶42

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(kpl)

W.P.No.22329 of 2023

19.09.2023

Page 5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vaithiyanathan v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaithiyanathan 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

M. Selvam Vs S. Kaliappan

T.Sankar Vs the Taluk Tahsildar

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Vs Sarala Devi

Krishnavinayagam Vs The Branch Manager

K.Kalairaja Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M/S. S.P Palaniappan and Co. Vs Icici Bank