Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Kathavarayan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, to take action against the sixth respondent, S.S. Ganesh Raja, a practising advocate, based on a complaint dated 04.12.2024. The petitioner alleged that the sixth respondent, who was a tenant in a building owned by the petitioner, had threatened the petitioner, failed to pay rent for several months, and refused to vacate the premises even after the lease deed expired on 31.10.2021. The lease was not renewed or extended by the landlord. The petitioner made a complaint to the Bar Council raising allegations about the advocate's conduct. The court examined the provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides for punishment of advocates for professional or other misconduct. The court noted that the Bar Council has a duty to refer a complaint to its disciplinary committee if it has reason to believe that an advocate has been guilty of misconduct. The court also referred to Rule 44-B of the Bar Council of India Rules, which requires an advocate to conduct himself as a gentleman and not engage in unlawful acts. The court held that the conduct alleged, if proved, would amount to misconduct under Section 35, and the Bar Council cannot ignore the complaint. The court directed the Bar Council to consider the complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with the above direction.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act - Professional Misconduct - Section 35 - Bar Council's Duty - Complaint against advocate for threatening landlord, non-payment of rent, and refusal to vacate - Court held that such conduct, if proved, amounts to misconduct under Section 35, and the Bar Council must consider the complaint and take appropriate action - Held that the Bar Council cannot ignore a complaint merely because the conduct is not in the course of professional duties (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bar Council is obligated to take action on a complaint against an advocate for alleged misconduct in a landlord-tenant dispute, and whether such conduct falls within the ambit of professional or other misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent (Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 04.12.2024 and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Professional misconduct of advocate
- Section 35 Advocates Act 1961
- Bar Council disciplinary jurisdiction
- Conduct outside court
- Rule 44-B Part 6 BCI Rules
