Madras High Court Orders CBCID Inquiry Against Law Firm For Alleged Involvement In Unlawful Activities In Land Transaction

“An analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the copies of documents produced before this court, prima facie, reveals that the team consisting of Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, Ms.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,” the court said.

Justice Jagadish Chandira thus ordered a special team to be formed for investigation headed by an officer above the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the genuineness of the police complaints filed against the parties. The court also directed the team to enquire into the role played by the law firm and its associates in the land case and details of any pending case against the firm and its people.

The court also directed all police personnel in the state to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures in registering complaints and issuing CSRs and to take necessary legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor if any complaint relating to immovable property had to be closed as one of civil in nature.

The court further directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a detailed inquiry regarding the genuineness of education and enrolment of the advocates in question and to verify the entitlement of the law firm. The court asked the Bar Council to issue a Press Release for awareness among the general public against advertisements by law firms. The court also asked the bar council to ensure strict adherence to internship programs in legal education.

“Shall ensure that proper action is taken against the persons involved in advertising their legal profession and issue a Press Release creating awareness among public not to be carried away by advertisements given by fake Law Firms or by the posts uploaded in social media.Shall also ensure that strict adherence of internship programs, in its letter and spirit, are being followed while pursuing the law education,” the court said.

The court remarked that such directions were necessary not just in the interest of the litigants but to also have a control over the over-enthusiasm of freshers to indulge in unlawful activities without an understanding of its consequences and the ground reality that they could be misused by offenders.

Emphasising on ethics in the profession, the court remarked that the legal profession was a noble one and not a business or trade. The court added that any compromise with the nobility of the profession will affect people's faith in the rule of law and thus, any unprofessional conduct had to be viewed seriously.

“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,” the court said.

The court also stressed that when entrusted with a brief, the client was to be given sincere and honest treatment. The court added that the members of the legal profession should be free from suspicion and the reputation of the profession was much more than the fortunes. The court thus observed that any tactics of filibuster, adopted by the advocate must be seen as professional misconduct and the profession must be purified from such abuses of court procedures.

The civil revision petition was filed by one Kamlesh Chandrasekaran against the order of the Assistant City Civil Court and confirmed by the Additional City Civil Court refusing to grant an order of injunction. The petitioner had argued that the defendant had approached him seeking assistance for disposing of the suit property by removing 67 families that were illegally occupying the property. He informed the court that as per the terms of the agreement, he had agreed to purchase the property for Rs. 7.25 crore. He, however, argued that after facilitating the removal of the illegal occupants, the respondents reneged on their commitment to sell the suit property. He thus alleged that the respondents were maliciously colluding with third parties to dispose of the suit property without settling the petitioner's financial investment.

During the course of the hearing, the court, however, noted that the counsel for the petitioner had previously represented the respondents with respect to the same property. The court also noted other irregularities in that the petitioner was the manager of the law firm, in which the petitioner's counsel had previously worked and represented the respondents.

The court noted that the facts of the case disclosed some professional misconduct, misrepresentation, and unethical practices. However, noting that the court could not indulge into the same at the point, the court observed that the matter needed to be investigated by proper investigating agencies as per the procedure established by law and thus ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Advocate for M/s. Preethi Basker

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr .S.Ganesan for M/s.Colonel Ganesan Associates, Mr.P.Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader (CS), Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) [For Asst. Commissioner of Police, Kotturpuram], Ms.Greetha Senthilkumar, Secretary [For Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry]

Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v. MA Noor Jehan Beevi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

Case No: C.R.P.No.443 of 2025