Brought Disrepute To Legal Profession: Madras High Court Calls For Action Against Lawyer Who Forged Rental Documents
The Madras High Court has called for action against a lawyer who misused his position and forged rental agreements. The court observed that the lawyer was liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules 1975. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that lawyers enjoy a status in society and are...
The Madras High Court has called for action against a lawyer who misused his position and forged rental agreements. The court observed that the lawyer was liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules 1975.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that lawyers enjoy a status in society and are expected to maintain good conduct. In the present case, the court noted that the lawyer had abused his position which would cause disrepute to the legal profession.
“The 5th respondent is in occupation of the building belongs to the petitioner and running Lawyer Office by abusing his position as a lawyer which caused disreputation to the legal profession. The Bar Council has to maintain professional standards and in the event of any complaint of misconduct, actions are to be initiated. In the present case, the actions of the 5th respondent did not stop with the tenant and landlord relationship but it exceeded by creating forged rental agreement by misusing his position as a lawyer and further, a criminal case has also been registered against the 5th respondent in Crime No.297/2024 under Section 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Therefore, actions at the end of the Bar Council is just and necessary,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by BL Madhavan, who had entered into an agreement with Advocate B Amarnath. Madhavan informed the court that not only did Amarnath defaulted payment of rent but also occupied other portions of the building by creating forged lease agreements. He also informed the court that Amarnath continued to occupy the premises forcibly even after the expiry of the rental period. Since no action had been taken on the complaints made to the Bar Council of Infia and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and the police, Madhavan approached the High Court.
To find out the genuinity of the complaint, the court impleaded the Assistant Commissioner of Police to conduct an inquiry on the possession and genuinity of the rental agreements. The assistant commissioner sent the documents for forensic examination and informed the court that the documents in the possession of Amarnath were bogus and fabricated. The Assistant Commissioner also informed the court that Amarnath was unable to produce any documents to prove the payment of rent.
The court observed that Amarnath, as a lawyer was expected to maintain good conduct both inside and outside the court premises and be in accordance with law. The court added that by misusing his position as an Advocate, Amarnath has conducted and was liable to be prosecuted.
Since Amarnath had claimed to have been enrolled in the State of Andhra Pradesh but was running an office in Chennai, the court directed the Bar Council of India to verify his enrolment and initiate appropriate action. The court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry to proceed against Amarnath for misconduct and further directed the police to proceed with the criminal case and evict Amarnath.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.L.Madhavan (party in person)
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.K.Chandra Sekkar Standing Counsel Bar Council of TN & Puducherry, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, SC for BCI, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor, B.Amarnath
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
Case Title: BL Madhavan v The Secretary and Others
Case No: W.P.No.1006 of 2020