Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Madras High Court Evicts Lawyer for Forged Lease, Declares "No Shield for Misconduct in Legal Profession"

04 September 2024 11:52 AM

By: sayum


The Madras High Court has ordered the eviction of Advocate B. Amarnath from a disputed property after finding that he forged rental agreements to illegally occupy the premises. The court also directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take disciplinary action against him under the Advocates Act, 1961, and Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. The decision emphasizes the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and preventing abuse of legal status for personal gain.

The petitioner, B.L. Madhavan, who is the owner of the property in question located at CIT Nagar, Chennai, accused Advocate B. Amarnath of forging lease agreements to illegally occupy his property. The dispute arose when Amarnath, initially a tenant, failed to vacate the premises after the expiry of the lease and expanded his occupancy by creating fake rental agreements. Despite complaints filed with the Bar Council and local police, no substantial action was taken, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief.

The court was provided with a forensic report confirming that the signatures on the rental agreements presented by Advocate Amarnath were forged. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who conducted the inquiry, reported that the agreements were fabricated, and no evidence was found to support Amarnath's claim that he had paid rent as per the agreements.

The court took a serious view of the misconduct by the lawyer, highlighting the expectations placed on legal professionals to maintain high ethical standards both inside and outside the courtroom. Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that Amarnath’s actions not only constituted a breach of trust but also brought disrepute to the legal profession.

The court referenced Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which allows for the punishment of advocates found guilty of professional misconduct. The judgment noted that creating forged documents to occupy property is a grave offense, particularly when committed by a lawyer, and warrants strict disciplinary action by the Bar Council.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam remarked, "A lawyer who misuses his position to commit forgery and illegal occupation of property undermines the very foundation of the legal profession. The Bar Council is obligated to ensure that such misconduct does not go unpunished."

The Madras High Court's ruling sends a clear message that the legal profession must adhere to the highest ethical standards. The court's directives to the Bar Council to take disciplinary action against Advocate Amarnath underscore the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal system. The eviction order and subsequent legal proceedings are expected to serve as a deterrent against similar misconduct in the future.

Date of Decision: August 27, 2024

B.L. Madhavan v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry & Others

Latest Legal News