Bar Council Can’t Decide Property Disputes: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Senior Advocate Zafar M. Naiyer [Read Judgment]

Bar Council Can’t Decide Property Disputes: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Senior Advocate Zafar M. Naiyer [Read Judgment]

The Allahabad High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings against a senior advocate initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council on a complaint accusing him of grabbing land.

The Bench comprising Justice V.K. Shukla and Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi observed that such disputes relating to property should be decided by the competent civil court and not by the Bar Council.

A complaint was lodged against Senior Advocate Zafar M. Naiyer by one Sunil Nangia that on profound influence and in active collusion of other advocates, a gate has been installed by him on a property allegedly not belonging to him and, hence, he has misused his privilege as a lawyer. Finding that there is a ‘prima facie’ misconduct, the Bar Council initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

Challenging the said initiation of proceedings against him, the senior advocate approached the High Court contending that the entire proceedings are nullity for the reason that private disputes cannot be subject matter of inquiry by the U.P. State Bar Council.

The court, observing that the entire property dispute is pending adjudication in the civil court, said that U.P. State Bar Council should have deferred the matter till a verdict comes from the competent court, on the said property dispute. Quashing the entire proceedings initiated by Bar Council, the Court observed: “in our considered opinion, ongoing proceedings would be an abuse of the process for the simple reason that U.P. State Bar Council certainly will not take upon itself to decide the property dispute i.e. the main dispute and the incidental matter that has been referred to U.P. State Bar Council is purely dependent on the main issue as to whether petitioner has exclusive right to the passage and erect the gate, accordingly, the proceedings in question are quashed, at this stage.”

Read the Judgment here.