Madras High Court directs action against Advocates for forging petitioner's signature [Read Order] Meera Emmanuel May 5 2019
https://barandbench.com/madras-high-court-tn-bar-council-act-advocates-forge-petitioners-signature/
A writ petition to shift the location of a liquor vending outlet recently culminated in the Madras High Court ordering a Bar Council enquiry into the conduct of the lawyers who claimed to represent the petitioner.
A Division Bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a petition filed in the name of one Govindhan. The plea called for a direction to shift an outlet of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on the Gingee-Villupuram National Highways at Chittampoondi to any other place.
However, in a peculiar turn of events, the Court found that the petitioner’s signature in the petition appeared to be forged. To look into the matter, the Court also called on the Registrar (Vigilance) to submit a report.
The Registry concluded that the signatures collected in the writ petition, the vakalat and the sworn affidavit represented to be filed by Govindhan did not tally with his actual signature. To establish this finding, handwriting specimens collected from Govindhan during the Registry enquiry, the signature he put while receiving notice of the Registry enquiry as well as the signature he put in a document at the Chittampoondi District Library were compared.
The Court found that three advocates, Babu, Sakthivel and T Rajarathinam were complicit in the forgery. Therefore, it has directed the State Bar Council to carry out disciplinary action against the three, stating,
“Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry are directed to proceed, in accordance with law. It is expected that disciplinary Committees constituted, under the Bar Council of India Act, should seriously and meticulously, consider the orders of this Court and the report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, while taking appropriate decision, as directed by this Court.“
The Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition holding,
“As it is now prima facie found that the signatures contained in the writ petition (11 in number), i.e., vakalath and sworn affidavit, do not tally with the signatures contained in document Nos.1 to 3, details of which are extracted supra, writ petition does not deserve to be proceeded further. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”
Read the Order:
https://barandbench.com/madras-high-court-tn-bar-council-act-advocates-forge-petitioners-signature/
A writ petition to shift the location of a liquor vending outlet recently culminated in the Madras High Court ordering a Bar Council enquiry into the conduct of the lawyers who claimed to represent the petitioner.
A Division Bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a petition filed in the name of one Govindhan. The plea called for a direction to shift an outlet of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on the Gingee-Villupuram National Highways at Chittampoondi to any other place.
However, in a peculiar turn of events, the Court found that the petitioner’s signature in the petition appeared to be forged. To look into the matter, the Court also called on the Registrar (Vigilance) to submit a report.
The Registry concluded that the signatures collected in the writ petition, the vakalat and the sworn affidavit represented to be filed by Govindhan did not tally with his actual signature. To establish this finding, handwriting specimens collected from Govindhan during the Registry enquiry, the signature he put while receiving notice of the Registry enquiry as well as the signature he put in a document at the Chittampoondi District Library were compared.
The Court found that three advocates, Babu, Sakthivel and T Rajarathinam were complicit in the forgery. Therefore, it has directed the State Bar Council to carry out disciplinary action against the three, stating,
“Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry are directed to proceed, in accordance with law. It is expected that disciplinary Committees constituted, under the Bar Council of India Act, should seriously and meticulously, consider the orders of this Court and the report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, while taking appropriate decision, as directed by this Court.“
The Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition holding,
“As it is now prima facie found that the signatures contained in the writ petition (11 in number), i.e., vakalath and sworn affidavit, do not tally with the signatures contained in document Nos.1 to 3, details of which are extracted supra, writ petition does not deserve to be proceeded further. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”
Read the Order:
No comments:
Post a Comment