Table of Contents
“Periyasamy Challenges Madras High Court’s Inaction on Advocate’s Forged Rent Agreement”
The Madras High Court has submitted that the lawyers occupy a special position in the society and so they should not only behave properly within the precincts of the court but also outside the court compound.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and SV Sivagnanam ordered the Bar Council of India (BCI) to proceed against a lawyer who has been accused of forging a rent agreement.
The Bench also ordered the local police to continue with the criminal case which was filed against the lawyer that was passed on August 27.
“A Lawyer is privileged in the society, he is supposed to be a man of high moral standard, wherein the creation of forged rental agreement a Lawyer is guilty of misconduct within the provision of the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rule 1975 The 5th Respondent is in occupation of the building belonging to the Petitioner and using the same as Lawyer’s office bringing disrepute to legal profession The Bar council
The Court was dealing with a petition order PET-A-104/2014 in which one BL Madhavan a resident of Chennai having no other reason expected the Court to direct the BCI and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to act against a lawyer, one B Amarnath enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
Petitioner informed the Court that he had made a deal where by he was to let out a room to the respondent Amarnath on rent. However the act of the respondent Amarnath did not only fail to make the rental payment but also got a new agreement drafted and captured much more area of the house belonging to the petitioner.
The Court had earlier demanded that the local police and the district authorities respond as to whether what the petitioner stated in his complaint was true. When the authorities proved that the allegations were true, the Court added that Amarnath stood to face action for the said misconducts.
“Since the 5th respondent is a lawyer his conduct, in and out of the Court is expected to be good and in compliance with the law,” The Court concluded.
The petitioner was an active party in the hearing and as such testified personally. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were represented by Senior Advocate CK Chandra Sekkar.
Shri SR Raghunathan, the Senior Advocate argued the case on behalf of Bar Council of India.
Other advocates for the Tamil Nadu Police was Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak.
Mr. B Amarnath, a representative of the company filed the motion seeking to be allowed to appear in person for the party.
