2021 (3) TMI 306 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking to make suitable amendments in the Company Petition and the Interlocutory Applications to ensure compliance of Rule 121 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - seeking direction to applicant to strictly comply with Rules 120 and 121 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 while making appearance in the Company Petition and all connected Interlocutory Applications - HELD THAT - This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette by an Advocate. The matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India. Applicants may approach the Bar Council of India, for redressal of their grievance.

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Rules 120 and 121 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.
2. Alleged violations of Rule 33 of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of the Bar Council of India.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain complaints of professional misconduct by advocates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Rules 120 and 121 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016:
The Applicants alleged that there was a gross violation of Rule 121, which restricts the appearance of legal practitioners or authorized representatives who have previously advised or acted for a party in related matters. The Applicants contended that Mr. Sukumar Nainan Oommen appeared for multiple parties without filing the necessary consent under Rule 120. They argued that such actions were in clear violation of Rule 121, as the same counsel was making submissions on behalf of both the applicants and the 4th respondent. The Respondents countered that there was no conflict of interest among the majority shareholders and that the majority shareholders had given consent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents to canvass the common cause. They argued that the Arguing Counsel had complied with Rule 120 and that the allegations of breach were based on a misinterpretation of the rules.

2. Alleged Violations of Rule 33 of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of the Bar Council of India:
The Applicants claimed that the counsel's actions violated Rule 33, which prohibits an advocate from acting, appearing, or pleading for the opposite party if they have previously advised or acted for a party in the same matter. They argued that the counsel's representation of both the applicants and the 4th respondent in related matters was improper. The Respondents argued that there was no conflict of interest and that the counsel had disclosed all relevant information to their clients. They emphasized that the right to engage a counsel is a fundamental right and that there was no necessity for the counsel to obtain consent from the opposite party in the absence of a conflict of interest.

3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Entertain Complaints of Professional Misconduct by Advocates:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints of professional misconduct by advocates. It referred to Rule 33 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, including Sections 35, 36, and 36B. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such complaints, as the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Dayashankar Vs. O.T. Aldons, which held that complaints of professional misconduct should be referred to the Bar Council of India.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette by an advocate. The Applicants were advised to approach the Bar Council of India for redressal of their grievance. The Interlocutory Application IA/169/KOB/2020 was disposed of with this observation.

← Previous Next →