No Partnership Can Act Or Plea In Court Unless All Members Are Entitled: Madras High Court Orders Probe Against Alleged Fake Law Firm

The Madras High Court has directed inquiry against an alleged fake law firm namely “JMI Law Associates” with regard to the genuineness of education and enrolment of its members.

The Court was dealing with a Civil Revision Petition challenging the Orders of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court and XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

A Single Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira observed, “The Code of Conduct framed under BCI rules further reiterates that advocates shall maintain professional integrity and do not engage in acts that could mislead the public or undermine the legal profession. Individuals, who misrepresent themselves as advocates and engage in unauthorized legal practice can be held liable for both civil and criminal contempt. Further, as per Order 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court, Madras Appellate Side, 1965, no partnership shall be entitled to act or plead in any court unless all the members thereof are entitled to act or plead in such court.”

The Bench remarked that the daily Orders being granted by the Court have been cited with the names of some of the sitting Judges to give a fallacious impression to the common people/litigant, which is highly deprecated.

Senior Advocate V. Prakash and Advocate Preethi Basker represented the Petitioner while Advocate S. Ganesan, Additional Government Pleader (AGP) P. Gurunathan, Government Advocate V.J. Priyadarsana, and Advocate Greetha Senthilkumar (Secretary of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry) represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The Petitioner i.e., the Plaintiff namely Kamalesh Chandrasekaran had entered into an agreement with the Defendants to purchase a vacant land in Chennai for Rs. 7.25 crores. The Plaintiff paid Rs. 1 crore as advance and spent an additional Rs. 1.25 crores to evict illegal occupants from the property. However, the Defendants allegedly reneged on their commitment to sell the property and instead sought to sell it to a third party for a higher price. The Plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the Defendants from alienating the property, but the Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed his Application. Hence, he approached the High Court, seeking to set aside the Orders of the lower Courts and grant an injunction to protect his interests in the property. The counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Preethi Baskar, faced allegations of professional misconduct. The opposing counsel claimed that she initially represented the Respondents but later switched sides, helping the Petitioner grab the suit property.

She admitted receiving a large sum for clearing encroachers but claimed it was for her work with a law firm. She submitted that she had joined a Firm called JMI Law Associates and received a sizable amount of Rs. 1,37,50,000/- in her account for the same being used by one Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, the proprietor of JMI Law Associates for clearing the encroachers from the suit property. The Court ordered a police inspection of the property and later allowed Baskar's senior counsel to respond to the allegations. The senior counsel produced employment details and a GST registration certificate for the law firm, JMI Law Associates. He acknowledged possible procedural lapses and sought permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition, suggesting the dispute could continue before the Trial Court. The High Court, however, decided to implead the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, to clarify the issues raised. Many allegations of unethical practice were levelled against the counsel for the Plaintiff by the counsel for the Respondents.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, this court finds that it is a peculiar case, where a holder of an unregistered agreement for sale, seeks for an injunction admittedly, against the title holders of a property. Having failed before the Trial Court and the appellate court in getting an order of ad-interim injunction pending trial in a suit filed by him seeking a relief of permanent injunction in simplicitor, the plaintiff had chosen to file the present civil revision petition.”

The Court reiterated that while a person has every right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title, a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

“The third image makes unwanted and misleading propaganda of certain routine services of a lawyer. … as per Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, an advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or producing photographs to be published in connection with cases in which the advocate has been engaged or concerned and an an advocate shall not permit his/her name to be used in connection with advertisements or such unauthorized practices”, it further noted.

The Court observed that the images coupled with the conduct of the counsel for the Petitioner and her associates, in association with one Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim illustrates gross violation of the Rules/guidelines.

“The way in which the papers in all the litigations are made ready and presented in various courts speaks much about the conduct of the parties. The second respondent is claimed to be a retired Airforce Veteran. When such a literated person, who could be expected to be more vigilant, himself is being taken to task, the fate of layman with poor literacy, but, possessing any immovable property cannot be envisaged”, it added.

Moreover, the Court remarked that many a times, various Courts have come down heavily on the professional ethics and misconduct in legal profession. It emphasised that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys a special status in society.

“The advocates have obligations and duties to ensure the smooth functioning of the court and they owe a duty to their clients, of course, without interfering with the administration of justice. They cannot disrupt the court proceedings and put the interest of their clients in jeopardy. The legal profession is a noble profession and not a business or trade. An advocate’s attitude towards his client have to be scrupulously honest and fair. Any compromise with the law’s nobility as a profession is bound to affect the faith of the people in the rule of law and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously. A person practising law has an obligation to maintain probity and a high standard of professional ethics and morality”, it also remarked.

The Court was of the view that when an Advocate is entrusted with a brief, he is expected to follow norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust.

“Counsel's paramount duty is to the client. When a person consults a lawyer for his advice, he relies upon his requisite experience, skill and knowledge as a lawyer and the lawyer is expected to give proper and dispassionate legal advice to the client for the protection of his interests”, it observed.

The Court enunciated that an Advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants and it, therefore, follows that the client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere, and honest treatment especially, where the client approaches the Advocate for succour in times of need.

“The members of the legal profession should stand free from suspicion. The reputation of a profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct. Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the team consisting of Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, Preethi Baskar, Kamalesh-Petitioner herein and their accomplices appear to have been indulging into forum shopping, misrepresenting the Courts, attempting to legalise the illegal activities, and thereby making the judicial system as a mockery.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a detailed inquiry against the law firm and also ordered the CBCID to conduct a preliminary enquiry regarding the genuineness of the Complaints.

Cause Title- Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. M.A. Noor Jehan Beevi & Ors. (Case Number: C.R.P.No.443 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order