Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35—Professional misconduct—Petition to quash notice issued by the State Bar Council and to quash complaint filed by a judgment debtor—What is alleged is that the petitioner has entered into a transaction with the decree holders—Submission of petitioner-in-person is that the complainant has no locus to initiate proceedings against him—Complainant had no locus to file the complaint against the petitioner, as he was neither his Advocate nor there was any engagement of the petitioner by the second respondent at any point in time—Petitioner was the counsel who had appeared against the second respondent—Complaint, at best, was maintainable by the decree holders, if there was any allegation against the petitioner and not at the instance of judgment debtor—Since the issue of locus cuts at the root of the matter and the root is found to be contrary to law, all other submissions of the petitioner in-person that there should be reason to believe, for initiation of proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, need not be gone into—Complaint was not even maintainable at the hands of complainant before the Bar Council—Notice issued by the Bar Council pursuant to proceedings initiated against the petitioner stands quashed—Petition allowed.
[Paras 14 & 15]