Disposed

Priya Prabakar v. The Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry

Madras HC11 Jun 2024WP/13027/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry resolution rejecting a complaint of professional misconduct against an advocate. The Court held that an alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 48A of the Advocates Act was available and disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue that remedy.

What the court decided

AI extract

Priya Prabakar Vs The Bar Council of TamilNadu and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.13027 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

WP.No.13027 of 2023

Priya Prabakar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. By its Chairman High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.

¶13

S.Sathish Babu

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 05.08.2022 along with the Resolution No.235 of 2022 dated 04.05.2022 in Conflict No.2825 of 2022 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to take the matter on trial and permit the Complainant herein to let in documentary, electronic as well as oral evidence and after the same, or pass any other order or direction as this

¶16

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

WP.No.13027 of 2023

¶18

Hon'ble Court may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Adith Narayana Vijayaragavan For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for R1 Mr.E.Kannadasan for R2 *****

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶22

The Resolution No.235 of 2022 dated 04.05.2022 rejecting the

¶23

complaint submitted by the writ petitioner against the 2^nd respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the complaint regarding misconduct submitted against the 2^nd respondent to the first respondent has not been considered properly. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no application of mind while dealing with the allegations as raised in the complaint by the writ petitioner. However, a Revision is contemplated under Section 48A of The Advocates Act. The disputed issues sought to be adjudicated by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India under the scheme contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a Revision under Section

¶24

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP.No.13027 of 2023

¶26

48A of the Act to redress her grievances.

¶27

With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed

¶28

of. No costs.

¶29

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 11.06.2024

¶30

kmi Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶31

¶32

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. By its Chairman High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.

¶33

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP.No.13027 of 2023

¶35

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

kmi

WP.No.13027 of 2023

11.06.2024

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Priya Prabakar v. The Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Priya Prabakar v. The Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Vs B.Bhuvaneswari

The State of Tamilnadu Vs Dr.Md.Niamathulla Hussain

A.Kalpanadevi Vs Special Commissioner

R.Sankarasubbu Vs The Teller committee

K.Arivalagan Vs The Registrar

J.Jayapaul Mohan Vs The Secretary