Madras High Court Orders Inquiry into Allegations of Professional Misconduct and Unauthorized Legal Practice
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madras High Court has directed an inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct, unauthorized legal practice, and forum shopping involving multiple legal practitioners and an unregistered law firm. The Single Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira, has instructed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to verify the credentials and enrollment status of the concerned advocates and to ascertain whether JMI Law Associates, the legal entity involved, has the legal standing to function as a law firm.
The court has also constituted a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to examine financial transactions, complaints exchanged between the involved parties, and any alleged misrepresentation before judicial forums. It was observed that "the judicial system cannot be allowed to be manipulated through questionable legal tactics and forum shopping." The court further ordered law enforcement authorities to ensure strict compliance with procedural norms in handling complaints related to immovable property and directed the case to be placed for compliance reporting after three weeks.
The case arises from a property dispute concerning a plot in Mylapore, Chennai, measuring 3 grounds and 1995 square feet. Respondents 1 to 3, the titleholders of the property, had earlier initiated legal proceedings to evict unauthorized occupants who had occupied the land for several decades. These eviction suits culminated in favorable judgments for the titleholders in 2018, leading to execution petitions for the enforcement of these eviction orders.
Subsequently, one Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim was introduced to the second respondent as an investor interested in purchasing the property. It was agreed that the second respondent would secure the eviction of the occupants while the investor would finance the process. The parties purportedly executed an unregistered agreement for sale, under which a sum of Rs.10 lakh was paid as advance. The agreement stipulated a total sale consideration of Rs.7.25 crore.
The plaintiff in the case, Kamalesh Chandrasekaran, claimed to be the purchaser under this agreement and alleged that he had incurred substantial costs towards the eviction process. He contended that he had invested Rs.1.25 crore in clearing unauthorized occupants, expecting this amount to be adjusted against the sale consideration. However, according to the respondents, the agreement lapsed due to non-payment of the full sale consideration within the stipulated period, and the property was subsequently sought to be sold to a different entity.
The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating or encumbering the property. He also sought an ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The trial court dismissed this request, and a subsequent appeal was also rejected by the appellate court. Following these setbacks, the plaintiff approached the High Court through a civil revision petition.
During the course of proceedings, allegations surfaced regarding the role of JMI Law Associates, its legal standing, and its financial dealings with the parties involved in the dispute. It was claimed that the firm, led by Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, had engaged in practices that could amount to unauthorized legal representation, misrepresentation before courts, and financial coercion.
The court took serious note of the allegations presented, particularly those concerning professional misconduct and the operation of JMI Law Associates. Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira observed that "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, and their accomplices appear to have been indulging in forum shopping, misrepresenting the courts, attempting to legalize illegal activities, and thereby making the judicial system a mockery."
Addressing the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners, the court stated that "an advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants and, therefore, the client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere, and honest treatment, especially where the client approaches the advocate for succor in times of need. The members of the legal profession should stand free from suspicion."
The court further observed that "the mysterious activities of Ms. Preethi Baskar, Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, Kamalesh, and their accomplices in filing lis one after another exerting infinite pressure on respondents 1 to 3, especially when the same Ms. Preethi Baskar had earlier appeared for respondents 1 to 3 herein in the execution petitions involving the same suit property, raise serious concerns."
It was also noted that "the judicial system cannot be manipulated through tactics of forum shopping, misrepresentation, and pressure tactics, particularly when they involve professional misconduct and financial transactions of questionable legality."
In view of the observations made, the court issued the following directives. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was instructed to conduct a thorough inquiry into the educational qualifications, enrollment status, and professional conduct of the advocates involved, including Ms. Preethi Baskar, Mr. Mani Bharathi, and Mr. Abel Selvakumar. The Bar Council was also directed to verify whether JMI Law Associates is legally recognized as a law firm and to examine all vakalats filed by the firm in various courts and tribunals.
The court further ordered the Bar Council to investigate allegations against Ms. Preethi Baskar and JMI Law Associates, along with counter-allegations made against Mr. S. Ganesan, the counsel representing the respondents. It was also directed to scrutinize any instances where advocates or legal firms had engaged in advertising their legal services in contravention of professional ethics and to ensure that such violations were dealt with appropriately.
A Special Investigative Team, led by a senior officer from the CBCID, was constituted to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the authenticity of complaints and counter-complaints filed between the parties. The team was directed to examine the role of JMI Law Associates and its associates in this case and other similar matters, as well as to investigate financial transactions related to the dispute, including funds allegedly spent on the eviction process and professional fees received.
The court also directed that all police personnel in Tamil Nadu strictly adhere to Standard Operating Procedures while registering complaints and issuing Community Service Registers (CSRs). It was specifically mandated that in cases involving immovable property, legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor must be obtained before closing complaints as civil in nature.
The matter has been scheduled for compliance reporting in three weeks, with directions for the Bar Council and the SIT to submit their findings to the court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
- For Petitioner: V. Prakash, Senior Advocate, for M/s. Preethi Baskar
- For Respondents 1 to 3: S. Ganesan for M/s. Colonel Ganesan Associates
- For Respondent 4: P. Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader (CS)
- For Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kotturpuram: V. J. Priyadarsana, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
- For Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry: Greetha Senthilkumar, Secretary
Case Title: Re M.A. Noor Jehan Beevi
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 443 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
[Read/Download order]
