SECTION 48A OF THE ACT ITSELF MANDATES THAT NO ORDER WHICH IS PREJUDICIALLY AFFECTING ANY PERSON SHALL BE PASSED WITHOUT GIVING HIM A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE REVISION PETITION SYAS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Sri. K. B. Naik vs Bar Council Of India on 17 November, (202220983 OF 2022 (GM-RES)) The petitioner is challenging before this Court the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Bar Association of India in Revision Petition No. 45 of 2022 directing the suspension of the petitioner from the practice of law in any court in the country during the pendency of the trial. revision petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is an advocate enrolled at the Bar of Karnataka and claims to have 28 years of experience. He further claims that he was the former Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council and is a member of the said Council. One Sri Basavaraju Murugesh Jarali another practicing advocate, registered a complaint with the Karnataka State Bar Association WP No. 20983 of 2022 alleging that the petitioner has committed certain illegal acts while referring to certain court proceedings. The court proceedings concerned O.S. Well 14 of 2008 and Regular Appeal No. 334 of 2019. The allegation against the petitioner in the said complaint was that a criminal case was registered against one Basavaraddi Venkateddi Chulaki and other family members for offenses under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 302 IPC, who engaged the services of the petitioner as their legal counsel. When the said crime was registered, the accused were in custody from their arrest until the day they were acquitted by the learned appellate judge in case No. 39 of 2007, as of 03/28/2008. After the acquittal and release of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki, he claims that he came to know that the petitioner created certain general power of attorney and sold the property without the knowledge of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. This led to the initiation of the suit in O.S. Well 14 of 2008 to declare that the sale deed is void and not binding on Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. WP No. 20983 of 2022 was declared. This was challenged by the purchaser of the said property in R.A.No.135 of 2012. The Court of Appeals remanded the matter back to the trial court to summon the necessary parties and after that pass appropriate orders. At the same time, the present petitioner was thrown into the O.S. No. 14 of 2008. The charge against him was that he had misused the signatures of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. The action was again decided in favor of the plaintiff on 26/04/2019 and certain observations were made against the appellant. The moment the decree is passed, there will be a complaint which will be registered on 28/09/2021 before the 2nd respondent / Karnataka State Bar Council by the complainant – respondent No. 3. Explanation was sought by the 2nd respondent, on the basis of which the petitioner filed explanation refuting all these allegations made in the complaint and also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that he challenged the judgments and orders passed in O.S.No.14 of 2008 and R.A.No.334 of 2019 before this Court in R̥.S.A.No.100383 of 2021 and this Court allowed the appeal of WP No. 20983 of 2022 and stayed the judgments and orders of both the trial court and the appellate court. Aware of this fact, the 2nd respondent terminated the proceedings with the petitioner. After the conclusion of the proceedings, the appellant approaches the 1st respondent/Bar Council of India invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). It appears that the 1st respondent sent a video conference link which did not appear and without hearing the petitioner passed an order on 26.09.2022 that the petitioner is barred from acting in any court during the pendency of the revision petition. This order of 26/09/2022 was delivered to the petitioner on 19/10/2022. The petitioner immediately knocked on the door of this court in the present petition challenging the order dated 26.09.2022. This court, by an interim order dated 21/10/2022, stopped the operation, execution, and all other proceedings so that the order dated 26/09/2022 would be passed by the 1st respondent and function as before.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT
The hon’ble judge M.Nagaprasanna observed that:-
(i) The WRIT PETITION is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.9.2022 passed in Revision Petition No. 45 of 2022 by the Bar of India is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Bar of India, which shall hear the petitioner, give him a reasonable opportunity of defense, conduct proceedings in accordance with law and after considering the defense, pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. the proposer.
– 24 –
WP No. 20983 of 2022
(iv) Since the petitioner and the 1st respondent are represented before this Court, the petitioner will appear before the Bar of India on 19.12.2022.
(v) The Bar Council of India may modify its procedure on the appearance of the petitioner on 19.12.2022.
(vi) All disputes between the parties shall remain open.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR