The Delhi High Court has showed its reservation on parties filing complaints against opposite Counsels over insubstantial issues.
The Justice Prathiba M Singh in one such matter observed that lawyers being put to 'harassment and frustration' due to repeated Bar council complaints cannot be countenanced unless some serious case of misconduct is made out.
The present petition was filed by four lawyers challenging the impugned notices issued by the Bar Council of Delhi calling upon the Petitioners to appear before it personally and file a reply in regard to complaint filed by the authorised representative of one Respondent in the case they are litigating.
They submitted that the present complaint of which the BCD has taken cognisance of, is the second complaint on the same allegations and the last one was filed in November last year.
However, thereafter, the said Respondent approached Trial Court in the absence of BCD having powers of reviewing their orders. The Trial Court then went on to observe that order dismissing the complaint filed by applicant herein before BCD may have been dismissed but that does not mean that Bar Council of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding misconduct of Advocates.
"In view of the submissions made hereinabove by the applicant/ complainant and overall facts and circumstances it is appropriate that applicant/ complainant takes, recourse to remedies available under the Advocates Act for the grievances regarding misconduct of Advocates," the Court ordered.
On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, ld. counsel appearing for the BCD submitted that the BCD merely issued notice for the Petitioner to file their replies and for appearing before the BCD.
Mr. Anand Datwani, who represents Respondent submitted that the matter deserves to be looked into by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCD pursuant to the liberty given by the ld. CMM.
The Court after persuing material on records and taking into accounts the submissions, prima-facie established that the complaints which have been filed are identical in nature before the BCD.
The first complaint was dismissed by BCD but the second complaint has been entertained, the court pointed out.
In this backdrop, the Court expressed that it has noticed with some concern that on a regular basis, there are several petitions which are filed relating to complaints against advocates, where BCD is delaying the examination of the same.
"The same kind of alacrity which is shown in the present case does not usually appear to be shown, of which judicial notice can be taken by this Court. The first complaint was disposed of in November, 2022.Immediately, thereafter a second complaint is filed on 13th January, 2023. and notice is issued on 13th February, 2023," the Court stated.
The Court in this view, directed the BCD to place on record a detailed chart giving the details of all pending complaints against Advocates, which shall include the dates of filing of those complaints and the dates of first notices in all those matters within six weeks.
If there are any second complaints which have been filed and entertained, the same shall be reflected in the chart separately, the Court directed.The Court also adjourned the hearing and the proceedings in the complaint against the Petitioners.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments