Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Paras Jain, an advocate practicing in Bengaluru for 44 years, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council and seeking quashment of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, Sri A. Ramachandra Reddy. The petitioner was the counsel for the decree holder, Sri Jinender Kumar Gandhi and his family members, in Execution Case Nos.458 of 2007 and 459 of 2007 pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The 2nd respondent was the Judgment Debtor No.3 in those execution proceedings, against whom a decree of possession had been passed in O.S.Nos.9077 of 1996 and 9078 of 1996. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct against the petitioner. The Bar Council issued a notice to the petitioner based on that complaint. The petitioner contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the 2nd respondent was not his client but an adversary. The court analyzed Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and held that a complaint of professional misconduct can only be filed by the client or by the Bar Council suo motu. A third party, such as a judgment debtor, cannot file such a complaint. The Bar Council's jurisdiction under Section 35 is limited to complaints by the client or suo motu action. Therefore, the complaint by the 2nd respondent was not maintainable, and the notice issued by the Bar Council was without jurisdiction. The court quashed the notice and the complaint.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct - Maintainability of Complaint - Complaint by Judgment Debtor against Decree Holder's Advocate - The court held that a complaint of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is maintainable only if filed by the client or by the Bar Council suo motu. A judgment debtor, who is an adversary of the client, cannot file such a complaint. The Bar Council lacks jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a non-client. (Paras 5-10) B) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35 - Bar Council's Jurisdiction - The Bar Council's jurisdiction under Section 35 is limited to complaints by the client or suo motu action. Entertaining a complaint by a third party, such as a judgment debtor, is without jurisdiction. The notice issued by the Bar Council in such a complaint is liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint of professional misconduct filed by a judgment debtor against the advocate of the decree holder is maintainable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and whether the Bar Council has jurisdiction to issue notice in such a complaint.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 22.07.2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent are quashed.
Law Points
- Professional misconduct complaint by judgment debtor against decree holder's advocate not maintainable
- Bar Council lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaint by non-client
- complaint must be by client or through Bar Council suo motu
- Advocates Act 1961 Section 35
