top of page

P.R(Complainant)v.V.I(Respondent) BCI TR Case No.101/1998

Updated: Mar 16, 2022

P.R(Complainant)v.V.I(Respondent) BCI TR Case No.101/1998

The complainant was the District Munisif Magistrate at Anakapalle from 19-11-84 to 8-4-85. The respondent was a practicing Lawyer there. The respondent was the Advocate for a respondent in a maintenance case. On 29-10-1985 when the case was called the Advocate as well as his client was absent, so ex-party order was passed.Therefore, the present respondent filed a contempt petition against the complainant(P.R) in his court alleging the following things.

1.The High Court has passed transfer order to P.R. on 20-10-

1985 but, instead of handing over the charge and obey the order he continued there up to 8-11-1985 on certain pretest(arranged by him).

2.The complainant was wasting valuable time of the court and also the revenue of the Govt.

P.R. referred this contempt petition to the District Judge. District Judge referred it to High Court. The court advised P.R. to logde a complaint against V.I. before the State Bar Council for professional misconduct. Hence P.R. filed a complaint against the respondent alleging professional misconduct because he has filed contempt petition on false grounds under his signature against the presiding officer by name and bringing down the reputation of he presiding officer. The respondent also acted on his own and not under the instruction of his client.

The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh after enquiry held that by filing the said contempt petition against the presiding officer with serious allegation, the respondent has committed professional misconduct.

In the mean time the respondent was also selected and appointed as District Munsif Magistrate and he ceased to be an Advocate. So, the Bar Council expressed its inability to pass any order of punishment against him for professional misconduct. So, they forward this order and other records to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action.


bottom of page