top of page

Commisoner of Civil Supplies & Consumer ProtectionDept. v. BalakrishnanDC Appeal No.15/1995

Mr.Chandrakanth of Villupuram has filed a writ petition No.10589/90 in the Madras High Court praying for the release of a Van TAH 4777 which was ceased by the Special Thasildar, Dindivanam on 5-7-1990. The writ petition was dismissed on 11-7-1990.The respondent Mr.V.Balakrishnan was the Advocate for Mr.Chandrakanth in the writ petition .After the dismissal of the Writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition the respondent sent the following telegram to the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot.

High Court of Madras in writ petition No.10589/1990 filed by Chandrakanth directed the District Revenue Officer to release the van TAH 4777 with 100 bags of paddy within one week. Do not sell the paddy. Detailed order follows’’.

In another writ petition No.6184/1990 the respondent sent the following telegram to the Collector, South Arcot.

In writ petition No.6184/1990 filed by cuberan of villupuram for release of 117 bags of paddy the High Court has ordered notice of motion returnable on 11-6-90. Not to dispose the paddy till the final order in the writ petition’.

A petition was filed against Mr.Balkrishnan before the State Bar Council alleging professional misconduct. It is alleged that the contents of both these telegrams were false and is not in consonance with the High Court order.

The State Bar Council gave benefit of doubt to the respondent by observing that he acted with all enthuciasm to protect the interest of his client. The State Bar Council observed that though his conduct is not praise worthy, it did not amount to professional misconduct and thereby no punishment is awarded to him.

Against this order an appeal was filed before the Bar Council of India . After hearing both the parties, the Bar Council of India passed the followings orders.

1.The order of the State bar Council was set aside.

2.He was found guilty of professional misconduct under S.35 of the Act.

3.The act sending wrong telegram misquoting the content of the

court order is not an act fit for an Advocate and he was reprimanded with strong words.

bottom of page