AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court for over 43 years. The third respondent lodged a complaint dated 06.01.1995 to the second respondent against the petitioner, which was acknowledged by the second respondent on 07.02.1995. According to the said complaint the petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.1800 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Control of the Small Causes Court, Madras on behalf of one Ms. Margaritha, a minor represented by her mother Mrs. Statenske Larrissa claiming that the minor is the only heir to the estate of Late Dr. B. Natarajan. The petitioner prepared a Power of Attorney Deed on behalf of the said minor daughter and her mother in favour of one Mr. Cheenu Prabhakaran. He also filed another Miscellaneous Petition No.1071 of 1985 in the said R.C.O.P. signed by the Power of Attorney Cheenu Prabhakaran. That the said M.P.No.1071 of 1995 was not in accordance with law as the Power Agent has no power to institute the legal proceedings. That after the dismissal of the said M.P.No.1071 of 1995 the petitioner preferred R.C.A.No.1004 of 1986 on 17.03.1986 on behalf of the said Power Agent and the petitioner suppressed the existence of Power of Attorney in the appellant forum. The said appeal R.C.A.No.1004 of 1986 was allowed. As against the said order C.R.P.No.1361 of 1990 was filed by the tenant and the petitioner also filed application No.2807 of 1996 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., to implead Ms. Statinske Larrissa and her minor daughter and that in the said Application the petitioner pleaded contrary to the earlier plea in the Rent Control Proceedings and acted against the interest of his clients. The Vakalath executed by Cheenu Prabhakaran was filed by the petitioner knowing fully well that no power was given by the Russian ladies under the Power of Attorney Deed dated 19.08.1985.
Based on the said complaint, the second respondent issued a notice dated 05.04.1995 to the petitioner, calling for his comments within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner also submitted a counter affidavit to the said notice on 19.09.1995. The second respondent considered both the complaint of the third respondent and the explanation offered by the petitioner and placed the same before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for consideration.
By a resolution dated 08.12.1996, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu resolved as follows:
" After careful consideration of the complaint and the comments, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu concludes that the complainant has established a prima facie case of misconduct against the respondent and it has therefore referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for disposal".
Challenging the said resolution of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 08.12.1996, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
I have heard the submissions of Mr. R.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.Jothimani learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M. Kumaraswami Pillai learned counsel for the third respondent.
The subject matter of the complaint resolves on the Power of Attorney dated 09.08.1985, said to have been executed by two Russian ladies in favour of one Cheenu Prabhakaran. Much prior to the complaint dated 06.01.1995, the third respondent, who is the complainant before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, filed a suit in C.S.No.134 of 1986 on the file of this Court against six persons praying for a decree for partition of his 1/7th share in respect of certain properties. The suit properties originally belonged to one Dr. Natarajan. The said Dr.Natarajan adopted one Mani Natarajan during his life time. After the demise of Dr. Natarajan a dispute arose between the heirs of Dr. Natarajan, including his adopted son Mani Natarajan.
During the pendency of the suit, one Cheenu Prabhakaran approached the petitioner claiming himself to be the Power Agent of legal heirs of Mani Natarajan and engaged the petitioner to appear in the said suit. An application in I.A.No.2807 of 1986 was filed to implead the legal representatives of Mani Natarajan, since by that time, he was no more. The genuineness of the Power of Attorney was put in issue before the learned single Judge while the said application was heard. Though the learned single Judge found that the Power of Attorney was defective, by virtue of the powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., allowed the application to implead the legal representatives of Mani Natarajan. Challenging the order impleading the legal representatives of Mani Natarajan, the third respondent filed appeal in O.S.A.No.8 of 1987. The legal representative of Mani Natarajan also filed another appeal in O.S.A.No.25 of 1987 as against the finding of the learned single Judge, holding that the Power of Attorney was not proper and defective.
A Division Bench of this Court heard both the O.S.As and by a common judgment dated 19.11.1992 passed the following order:-
"No exception can be taken to the Court Suo Motu ordering for the addition of parties. All that is required in such a situation is to serve the notice upon the parties and do ensure that the party concerned has got the opportunity to appear in the proceedings. We are informed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the applicants / respondents that a fresh power of attorney has been executed by them in favour of Chennu Prabhakaran, the person who alone had moved on their behalf in the suit. How that Power of Attorney shall work, however, shall be seen in the Trial Court, when the applicants/ respondents enter appearance. Appeals, on their behalf, on this score, in court opinion, are unnecessary. In the result, we find no merits in either of the two appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but on the facts of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs".
After the Judgment of the Division Bench, the entire matter including the genuineness of the Power of Attorney is to be considered and decided in the suit. However, pending the above proceedings, it appears that the third respondent complained that the petitioner entered appearance in rent control proceedings in favour of the said Cheenu Prabakaran on the strength of the said Power of Attorney. According to the third respondent, the petitioner was very well aware that the Power of Attorney was defective and knowing fully well, he entered appearance and prosecuted the case in the rent control proceedings in favour of Cheenu Prabakaran and his legal representatives.
Mr. R. Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the entire issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is defective or not is left to the decision of the Civil Court, the impugned resolution of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to refer the complaint of the third respondent to the disciplinary committee cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, this Court has already given a finding that the Power of Attorney was not defective. Hence, no further enquiry could be conducted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on the subject, which has been already concluded by the order of this Court.
However, Mr. P. Jothimani, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that independent of the decision of this Court as to the Power of Attorney, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is empowered to enquire into the complaint of alleged misconduct of an Advocate by virtue of the powers u/s 35 of the Advocates Act. Only by exercising such power, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had resolved to refer the complaint of the third respondent to the disciplinary committee. The Proceedings of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as to the misconduct on the part of the Advocate can always be parallel and independent of the proceedings of the Court.
I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents.
The complaint of the third respondent dated 07.02.1995 revolves only on the Power of Attorney dated 09.08.1985. The basic grievance of the third respondent is that the said Power of Attorney was defective and the petitioner, knowing fully well that the Power of Attorney was defective, has entered appearance on behalf of Cheenu Prabakaran. When the validity of the Power of Attorney was put in issue before this Court in I.A.No.2807 of 1986, learned single Judge of course found that the said Power of Attorney was defective. However, on appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 19.11.1992 had left the said issue to be decided by the Civil Court.
My attention was drawn to the order of K.SAMPATH,J., in Contempt Application No.272 of 1994 dated 01.07.1999. The said contempt application filed for the alleged disobedience of the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.12.1986 passed in Application No.2807 of 1986 in Application No.1103 of 1986 in C.S.No.134 of 1986. While dealing with the Power of Attorney in question, in paragraph 23 learned single Judge observed as follows:-
"It would be clear from the counter filed by the respondents that the rent control proceedings before the Appellate Authority were filed before the power was declared to be defective. It should also not be forgotten that the subsequent powers given by the two Russian ladies have ratified the earlier acts of the second respondent based on the earlier power".
In paragraph 27, learned single Judge observed,
"I do not think that any of these things would constitute any abuse of process of court or disobedience or playing fraud on the court. There has been no abuse of process of court calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceeding and the administration of justice in the instant case."
Having found so, learned single Judge dismissed the contempt application.
My attention was also drawn to the final judgment of M.CHOCKALINGAM, J., in C.S.No.134 of 1986 dated 27.06.2001. In the said judgment, learned single Judge held that the Power of Attorney in question was not defective and decided the case on merits. When such is the position, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is certainly bound by the orders of this Court as to the Power of Attorney. When this Court held that the Power of Attorney was not defective and the same has been acted upon to decide the suit, in my view, nothing remains for further enquiry by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu u/s 35 of the Advocates Act against the petitioner.
Moreover, all that the impugned resolution stated is that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu prima facie had satisfied that the petitioner had committed a misconduct. Even there, no such reason was adduced as to how the Bar Council has arrived such a conclusion. In any case, in view of the subsequent events by way of pronouncement of this Court in the contempt proceedings and in the suit, no further proceedings can be sustained on the basis of the impugned resolution by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
For the above reasons, the impugned resolution of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, dated 08.12.1996 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.Nos.8654 and 19787 of 1997 are closed.