MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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