Dismissed

M.Ahamed Shahjahan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Madras HC18 Jun 2024WP/2111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court (incorrectly labeled as Madras in the text but referencing MHC judis) disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 as infructuous because the third respondent, against whom the petition was directed, had died, causing the cause of action to vanish. Consequently, a connected miscellaneous petition was also closed without any costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition were disposed of as infructuous.

M.Ahamed Shahjahan Vs Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2427

¶2

W.P.No.2111 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 18.06.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

W.P.No.2111 of 2019 and

¶9

W.M.P.No.2367 of 2019

M.Ahamed Shahjahan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. by the Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.

¶14

2.The Adhoc Committee, Rep. by its President, R.Srinivasan, The Salem Bar Association, District Court Campus, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007.

¶15

3.G.Ponnusamy ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to take action

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.2111 of 2019

¶19

against the 3^rd respondent for the misconduct of the 3^rd respondent on the basis of the complaints and misusing the name of the 2^nd respondent association including action for interim suspension of practice or any other appropriate remedy or relief as this Honorable Court directs.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.Pujha.S For R1 : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar For R2 : Mr.M.R.Thangavel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st

¶24

respondent would submit that the 3^rd respondent died and cause became vanished. Thus, this Writ Petition stands disposed of as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

¶25

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 18.06.2024

¶26

Jeni Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.2111 of 2019

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.

¶31

2.The President, The Adhoc Committee, R.Srinivasan, The Salem Bar Association, District Court Campus, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.2111 of 2019

¶34

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

¶35

Jeni

¶36

W.P.No.2111 of 2019

¶37

18.06.2024

¶38

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

M.Ahamed Shahjahan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ahamed Shahjahan v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu 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

Caso and Commandant Vs R.Srinivasan

V.G.Jayamani Vs the Joint Registrar of Coop.Societies

K.R.Mani, Vs District Revenue Officer

P.Magesh Vs the Secretary

S.Anusuya Vs The District Collector

C.B.Suryanaraynan Vs The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry