The Madras High Court Monday restrained three advocates from practising in any court in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry pending disposal of a petition seeking action against them for alleged illegal activities.Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order and also included the Bar Council of India (BCI) as a party to the petition as it has stayed the removal of one of the advocates from the...
The Madras High Court Monday restrained three advocates from practising in any court in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry pending disposal of a petition seeking action against them for alleged illegal activities.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order and also included the Bar Council of India (BCI) as a party to the petition as it has stayed the removal of one of the advocates from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTP) two years ago.
The advocates restrained from practicing are S R Balasubramanian (Reg No.2428), S Saravanakumar (4049) and V Subramani (1368).
The Judge also directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTP) not to enroll a law student, who had completed his course and was facing allegations of illegal activities, without getting clearance from the court.
He then posted the case to November 22 for further hearing with a direction to the BCI and BCTP to file the status report on the action taken against the three advocates.
According to the petitioner Karthik, Balasubramanian of neighboring Dindigul was removed from its rolls by the BCTP for allegedly extracting money from the petitioner and grabbing his property.
On Balasubramanian's appeal, the BCI had stayed his removal two years ago.
Justice Venkatesh said it would be a disgrace to the profession if advocates like Balasubramanian, who did not deserve to continue as a lawyer, was allowed to practice.
He directed the BCI to hear the proceedings against Balasubramanian within two months and intimate to the court through its counsel the action taken against him.
Records showed that Balasubramanian had indulged in illegal activities and also gone to the extent of forcibly taking possession of a shop owned by the petitioner.
On the court's order, the Dindigul Superintendent of Police had taken possession of the office and restored it to the petitioner.
But he was indulging in illegal activities using his status as an advocate because the BCI did not approve his removal by the BCTP, the petitioner submitted.
Similar representation had been given against advocates S Saravanakumar and V Subramani to the BCTP.
The Standing counsel for the BCTP submitted that the council was taking appropriate action against the two advocates based on the representation.
(This story has not been edited by LiveLaw and is from PTI feed)