Allegation Of Professional Misconduct Cannot Be Levelled By Party For Whom The Advocate Did Not Appear: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a notice issued by the State Bar Council to a 71-year-old Advocate pursuant to 'professional misconduct' allegations levelled against him by the opposite party in a suit, i.e. the judgment debtor.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Advocate Paras Jain, and said,

“The complainant (A Ramachandra Reddy) had no locus to file the complaint against the petitioner, as he (petitioner) was neither his (complainant's) Advocate nor there was any engagement of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent at any point in time. He was the counsel who had appeared against the 2nd respondent. The complaint, at best, was maintainable by the decree holders, if there was any allegation against the petitioner and not at the instance of Judgment Debtor.”

Advocate Jain became a counsel for the decree holder Jinender Kumar Gandhi and his family members in Execution Case which were at that point in time pending before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. In the Execution petitions, Reddy is the Judgment Debtor No.3, against whom decree of possession was passed along with two other Judgment Debtors who were his parents.

In the final decree proceedings, delivery warrant was issued pursuant to which the decree holders received possession of the property through the Court Commissioner appointed by the Executing Court. The petitioner appeared for the decree holders in the aforesaid execution cases.

Reddy alleged that a suit was filed by the decree holders seeking partition of the schedule properties amongst themselves. The share of the petitioner was 22.05 per cent, it is alleged. Reddy said petitioner had transacted with his client which amounts to professional misconduct.

The petitioner arguing in person raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the complaint and submitted that he has never appeared for Reddy and there is no jural relationship of client and Advocate between them.

The bench on going through the records noted that long after drawing up of final decree, Reddy who was not a party in the compromise registered the impugned complaint. It said, “A bare reading of the complaint would indicate that it is filed by the Judgment Debtor. Judgment Debtor not in O.S.No.6629 of 2017 in which the petitioner becomes a defendant, but Judgment Debtor in Execution case Nos. 458 and 459 of 2007. Therefore, the petitioner is projecting the issue of locus as none of the parties to the compromise entered into in O.S.No.6629 of 2017 have registered any complaint nor the decree holders whom the petitioner represented have filed any complaint. It is filed by the Judgment Debtor.”

Court then relied on the High Court judgment in Mohammed Bashu v. Hospet Bar Association (2008), wherein it was held that any professional misconduct of an Advocate has to be complained by persons who have locus to complain, as the Bar Council of a State being a statutory authority is empowered to enquire into any misconduct of an Advocate and pass appropriate orders.

Following which it held “Since the issue of locus cuts at the root of the matter and the root is found to be contrary to law, all other submissions of the petitioner in-person that there should be reason to believe, for initiation of proceedings under Section 35 of the Act, need not be gone into.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Paras Jain, party in-person.

Advocate A.V. Gangadharappa, for R1.

Advocate R. Neelakantaswamy for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 278

Case Title: Paras Jain AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20076 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order