Case Analysis of V.K. Kumaresan v. P. Jayasaleen

 Case Analysis of V.K. Kumaresan v. P.Jayasaleen

By Shweta Nair

On 19 February 2020, a judgement was passed in the High Court of Judicature by Justice S.Vaidyanathan at Madras. V.K. Kumaresan, an advocate had filed petition for relocating case which is awaiting before the main Sub-Ordinate Court in Vellore to the Subordinate Court in Ranipet.

In this case, the respondent named P.Jayaseelan who was a doctor had given his house for rent charging monthly Rs.1800 to the petitioner in the Vellore district. But payments for the rent were irregular and the house had become a dumping yard which inflamed the respondent. The Doctor demanded Advocate to empty his house but he rejected. The respondent filed an interim application for retrieval of debts. Rental Arrears of Rs. 1,94,000 was deposited before the court. An application was filed again for the vacating of premises; advocate disproved stating that the arrears were already paid by him. The retrieval of arrears worth Rs.2,44,000 were requested by the doctor on which the interim stay was received by the advocate with a condition of depositing 50% of the arrears. On the request by learned counsel of petitioner  Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, dates were changed. Vakalath was also filed by advocate  Mr.R.Chandrasekaran, who gave an in-depth argument. But the Court remained unsatisfied. It was put forward by Mr. Venkatesh Mahadevan, learned counsel for the respondent that dilatory tactics were being played by the petitioner and house was not being vacated by him. Vakalaths were altered frequently and there was no presence of him before the court which made it evident that he just wants to extend the proceedings. 

The Conduct of the petitioner is callous, the court felt after hearing Mr. Venkatesh Mahadevan, the learned counsel for the respondent. 

Due to advocate’s misbehavior, the court got agitated and decided to punish him. The respondent will have the right to call police for seizing his property if the advocate doesn’t vacate premises within 2 weeks from the date when copy was received. Such an order was passed considering the judgment passed in the case of Radhika Sri Hari v. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore.

It was Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar who took the court’s notice to Section 35 of the Advocates Act of 1961 which states that

Punishment of advocates for misconduct. —

• On a receipt of complaint, a State Bar Council shall forward the case for disposal to disciplinary committee since it has reason to be certain of some professional or some other misconduct by any advocate on its roll. 

• A date shall be fixed for hearing the case by the disciplinary committee of State Bar Council and a notice shall be sent to Advocate as well as Advocate General of the state. The Advocate General may appear before the committee himself or through an advocate. 

• After providing the opportunity of being heard, any of the following orders may be passed by the disciplinary committee:

1. Rebuke the advocate 

2. Suspend advocate from practice for any specified period 

3. From the State roll of advocates, to remove the name of the advocate. 

4. Terminate complaint or order the proceedings to be filed in case proceedings were initiated by State Bar Council.

• If an advocate is suspended then he shall not be allowed to practice in any court or before any authority. 

The word Misconduct has not been defined either by Legal Practitioners Act 1879 or the Advocates Act 1961.

       

Law is a very noble profession. It is a profession which people used to think of it as incomparable to any other. A lot of admiration, a lawyer used to acquire. Moreover, even the freedom fighters were great lawyers for example, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, etc. So, people in general had this view that it is an advocate who fights for the nation, and guards our constitution from being dishonoured. And those who violate any fundamental rights in the constitution will be punished. 

Whereas now, lawyers themselves have started infringing fundamental rights and disregarding our constitution and committing wrongful acts or misconduct which drastically has brought a black mark on them. Just as in the above case, advocates like him are a stain on the fabric of legal profession and the Court itself has to take strict action against such lawyers to remove the stain. Because of few of such dishonest lawyers, legal profession’s reputation is dwindling.