1

BEFORE THE ENROLMENT COMMITTEE OF THE

BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AT CHENNAI

Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Advocate, Member

Mr.N.Chandrasekharan, Member
19 day of November, 2018.

T.N.E.C.R.No. 10 of 2018

Mr.M.Nelson .. Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs.Y.Muthumalar .. Respondent

ORDER

The complainant is a resident of Panainita Vilai Veedu, Pudukkadai

Village and Post, Kanyakumari District and he has come out with the
present complaint against the Respondent making serious allegations as
follows:-

1) That the respondent and her husband were the vegetable vendors and
they had not studied law and gone to any law college for undergoing the couse;

2) Whileso, in 2014 they had taken a shop for the rent at Pudukkadai and
installed the Board indicating that the respondent and her husband are
advocates with the qualification M.A., L.L.M., and her husband with B.B.A., L.L.B.
That apart they installed a huge Board mentioning National e.Governance Plan,
Common Service Centers Scheme, J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior
Decoration, PVC Doors with the respondent’s name as an Advocate
Mrs.Y.Muthumalar and her husband’s name Mr.A.Jaisingh B.B.A., L.L.B. Legal
Advisors. The e-mail, I.D. also is mentioned under the name of Mr.A.Jeyasingh
as e-mail:[email protected]. The phone numbers mentioned in the huge
board are 04651-234632, 9487372248.

3) That during the alleged study period for the law degree, the respondent
was working as a teacher for Yoga classes in Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha
Matric Higher Secondary School, Puthukkadai and Bethlahem Matric Higher
 2

Secondary School, Karungal. As she was a teacher in both the above schools
she could not have studied law in Sri Krishna Devaraya University, S.V.Puram,
Anantapur, State of Andhra Pradesh dated 24.03.2016.

4) That the respondent joining hands with her husband has been
involving in various unlawful activities of rowdyism, Kattapanjayath and other
unlawful activities by claiming herself as a lawyer.

5) Lot of common people are affected by the respondent and her practice.

6) Bethlahem Matric Higher Secondary School, Karungal by its letter

dated 15.10.2018 received by the Bar Council office, has submitted before this
Committee that Mrs.Y.Muthumalar is not at all an employee of their school and
she never worked from the year 2010 -2013 or subsequent days.

7) But the Former Correspondent of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha

Matric Higher Secondary School and the Vice Principal of Munchirai Punitha
Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, has forwarded a duly notarised
affidavit stating that she served during the tenure from 2009 May to 2015 April as
Yoga Teacher for 2 days in weekends and no substitutes were appointed in her
place. Her name was found on the roll of the school and she used to sign
attendance register and salary register also.

8) That she has filed a Civil suit against him and got an order of
Statusquo and after getting Statusquo, she, with the help of the Police removed
the stone structure put forth by him and set fire and this she has violated the
Court order.

9) She used to put forth three different signature on different occasions

wantonly a willful with a view of cheat others.

The Respondent Advocate in reply to the above contentions of the

complaint has put forth the following contentions:-

1) Due to her interest in Yoga she was requested by the above schools to
teach Yoga to the students and teachers as a Honourary Guest faculty member
and for that she has neither signed any document nor the attendance register as
a teacher for Yoga.
 3

2) When she was undergoing the Law course in Sri Vijaya Nagar College
of Law, State of Andhra Pradesh from 2010 onwards she had not taken any
Yoga classes in the above schools and the schools had chosen to appoint some
other persons for that purpose.

3) Her husband when he was undergoing third year Law course got
permission to run the National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers
Scheme, Department of Information Technology, Government of India and hence
he discontinued the Law course and he has been looking after the same. He
could not be able to complete the Law course and he has not anywhere practiced
as an Advocate

4) The complainant is a close relative of her husband’s family and there

was a partition deed of 1968 between her husband’s Grandmother and the
complainant’s father and his brothers as alleged in the complaint. She has
further contented that the complainant cheated her husband’s Grandmother and
got another deed registered on 25.11.1972 in respect of a pathway and thereby
defeated their right of using the pathway of six links to reach their residence. As
the mutual exchange deed and consequential partnership deed dated
25.03.1992 are against the original partition on 05.01.1968, she submitted a
petition to the Inspector of General, Registration Department, Chennai for the
cancellation of those deeds.

5) She has again contented that on 18.11.2017, the complainant and his
brother attempted to put up a construction on the pathway and when the same
was questioned, she was abused by the complainant and was stoned with bricks.
As she sustained injuries, she got admitted in Siva Lingam Hospital a private
Hospital as inpatient and got discharged only on 20.11.2017. There is a criminal
case in respect of that and that apart her husband also has filed a civil suit in
O.S. No.149/2017 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Kulithurai in
respect of the pathway and in that Statusquo was granted.

6) It is her further case that the complainant is the man of power and
influence and he has lodged a false complaint against her with a view to
blackmail her and escape from clutches of Law. In support of her above
contentions she has marked 24 documents as mentioned below:-
 4

R 1 to R 24 :

Sl.No. Date Document Information

1. 16.06.1992 S.S.L.C Certificate Xerox
2. 25.05.1994 H.S.C. Certificate Xerox
3. 17.07.1998 B.Com Certificate Xerox
4. 12.11.2010 B.Com Convocation Certificate Xerox
5. 12.11.2010 1996-97 certificate
6. 04.04.2007 Temporary Certificate for Yoga
7. 04.04.2007 Law Degree First Semester Mark Sheet
8. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Second Semester Mark Sheet
9. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Third Semester Mark Sheet
10. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Fourth Semester Mark Sheet
11. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Fifth Semester Mark Sheet
12. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Six Semester Mark Sheet
13. 24.03.2014 LLB Convocation
14. 15.07.2013 Law Degree Bonafide Certificate
15. 15.07.2014 Copy of the Attendance
16. 15.07.2013 Copy of Migration Certificate
17. 15.07.2013 LLM First Year Mark Sheet
18. 15.07.2013 LLM Second Year Mark Sheet
19. 14.07.2015 Certificate of Practice
20. 25.09.2015 Certificate of membership issued by Bar Council of Tamilnadu
21. 12.04.2014 Provisional Certificate of Enrolment as an Advocate issued by
Bar Council of Tamilnadu
22. 04.04.2018 Letter sent to Inspector General of Registration, Chennai by
Mr.Jeyasingh
23. Statusquo order in case no.149/17
24. 05.01.1968 Partitioner Document

7) The complainant also has marked nearly 21 documents Sl. No. 3 -23
including 2 FIR’s dated 10.09.2018 one against the complainant and another
against the Respondent and there is another FIR, dated 22.11.2017 in FIR
No.402/2017 against the Respondent. They are mentioned below:-

C 1 to C 21 :

Sl.No. Date Document Information

1. 15-11-2017 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent before
the Sub-Inspector of police, Pudukkadai Police Station.
2. 21-12-2017 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent and her
husband Jeyasingh before the District Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
 5

3. 28-02-2018 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent and her

husband Jeyasingh before the District Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
4. 22-11-2017 FIR No.402/2017 registered against the Respondent on the
complaint of Petitioner.
5. 19-11-2017 FIR registered against the Petitioner on the complaint of
Respondent.
6. Acquittance register showing the salary of the Respondent
signed and received by her from June 2012 to December 2017.
7. Attendance register signed by the Respondent from 2012 to
August 2013
8. Photos showing the law consultancy centre of the Respondent
wherein her husband Jeyasingh also his degree as L.L.B,
though he has not completed law.
9. Certificates of the Respondent
10. 2009 Resolution
11. 02.05.2018 The petitioner sent RTI to Bethlehem Higher Secondary School
Karungal.
12. The Petitioner sent RTI to the Inspector Matriculation School
Thirunelveli.
13. Acknowledgement Card
14. Acknowledgement Card
15. 19.07.2018 The petitioner sent first appeal before the director Matriculation
school Chennai - 600 006.
16. 31.07.2018 The reply sent by joint director Matriculation School, Chennai -
600 006.
17. Series of photos
18. 03.10.2018 Notice Issued by the Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police
Station.
19. Magazine saint Arokia Matha Church, Pudukadai.
20. 10.09.2018 F.I.R. against the Petitioner
21. 10.09.2018 F.I.R. against the Respondent.

8) Both the complainant and the Respondent have deposed before this
Committee what all they have averred in their respective complaint and counter
statement. Both have marked above documents without any objection from the
other party.

9) In this background the Committee has to decide as to whether the

Enrolment of the Respondent Advocate was erroneous and whether her
subsequent conduct has made her ineligible to practice as an advocate. When
the Respondent appeared before the Committee on 26.09.2018 the following
charges where framed namely :-

a) That without undergoing the regular law course, you have

got enrolled yourself on 12.04.2014 having completed the law course in
2014, while working in two schools.
 6

b) By installing huge flex boards claiming to be an advocate

running National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme,
Department of Information Technology, Government of India, you have
disqualified yourself from practicing as an advocate.

c) That by claiming to run J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior

Decoration, PVC Doors, The Xerox, DTP works, Lamination and
Spiral binding shops you have become disqualified under sec. 45 of the
Advocates Act, read with Sec VII Part VI of Chapter II and Chapter III of
the Bar Council Rules.

d) That as per rule 2 of Chapter III Bar Council of India Rules

Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules framed under section 49 (1) (ah)
of the Advocates Act, 1961, you ought not to have entered into any
arrangement for sharing any remuneration with any person or legal
practioner who is not an advocate.

e) That being an advocate you have violated admittedly the

Statusquo order granted by the Learned Principal District Munsif,
Kuzhithurai in O.S. No.149/2017 by demolishing the stone compound put
forth by the complaint with the help of the police and set fire.

10) The Respondent after taking note of the above charges has
vehemently contented before this Committee, that she is innocent and it is the
complainant who created all sorts of problems against her and her husband
because of which she could not be able to work peacefully. She cried and shed
tears before the Committee and uttered very strong and angry words against the
complainant who was present before the Committee. After hearing the parties at
the request of Respondent the case was adjourned to 08.10.2018 and on that
date she appeared along with a Counsels namely, Mr.D.Gopal and
Mr.K.Kathiresan who also argued for the rejection of the complaint.

11) The issue before this Committee is as to whether the Respondent

Advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications for appropriate action under
sec. 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 or whether she has suppressed her
employment particulars, present as well as past in her Enrolment Application
warranting action for removal under sec 26 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ?.
 7

12) We have carefully perused the complaint as well as the counter

statement, along with nearly 45 documents apart from the oral submissions of
both the parties.

13) The first contention of the complainant is that she could not have
studied the law course regularly in view of her employment in two schools as
mentioned earlier. In support of his contention he has marked the payment
register of the Respondent more than 30 months from June 2012 onwards and a
mere perusal of those documents not seriously objected by the Respondent
would reveal that she was regularly receiving salary for each months at least
from October 2012 onwards upto December 2017 under the seal and signature
Correspondent of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary
School, Puthukkadai. The complainant has also marked certain pages of
attendance register also.

14) In contra, the Respondent Advocate has produced the Semester

Marksheets and also a document called attendance certificate dated 15.07.2013
issued under the seal and the signature of the Principal, Sri Vijayanagar College
of Law, Anantapur which states that the Respondent has studied three years
L.L.B. in that college during the year 2010 to 2013 and she was having 82%
attendance during her studies.

15) It is not known as to how and why such a certificate was issued by the
Principal and it is not made clear as to whether all the students were issued with
such a certificate. Admittedly the law college is in Anantapur which may be
thousand kilometers away from the Respondent’s native place and the school in
which she claims to have been working even as on date as evidenced from the
payment register marked before the Committee by the complainant. It is
unbelievable to accept that one can work even as a part time teacher in a school
and then attend the law classes at Anantapur, state of Andhra Pradesh. From
the documents marked before this Committee we can easily come to an
irresistible conclusion that she could not have undergone the regular law course
from 2010, 2013 -2014 to get a law degree by satisfying Rule 5 of the Bar
Council of India Rules, Part IV Rules of Legal Education. As she could not have
undergone the regular law course, her law degree cannot be said to be a valid
law degree in the eye of law.

16) However, with a view to verify as to whether she has disclosed the
same in her Enrolment Application about her previous employment we called for
 8

the Enrolment Application and on seeing the same, we were shocked to note that
she has suppressed her previous employment in her Enrolment Application.
Even assuming without admitting that she was only a part time worker during her
course of study it is her duty to disclose the same in her Enrolment Application
and the failure to do so disentitles her to continue her practice as an Advocate as
her Enrolment is purely on suppression of material facts.

17) Secondly, the payment register marked by the complainant from June
2012 to December 2017 would clearly reveal that even after her enrolment as an
Advocate in 2014 in Roll No. Ms.526/2014 which is against not only Rule 47, 49
and 52 of Sec.VII of Part VI of Chapter II but also Rule 2 Chapter III the Bar
Council of India Rules. As the records reveal that she was in the school as a
Yoga teacher and receiving remuneration for every month upto December 2017,
she has attained disqualification to practice as an advocate under the above
provisions of law. We cannot definitely say as to whether she is working as on
date even after December 2017 as there is no positive evidence produced by
Respondent except the Bethlahem Matric Higher Secondary School, certificate
which runs contrary to the letter of the Former Correspondent of Munchirai
Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, Puthukkadai, who was
the Correspondent from May 2009 to 2015 dated 01.10.2018. There is no
necessity for the Former Correspondent to submit a false affidavit before this
Committee against the Respondent and hence, we have come to an irresistible
conclusion that :-

i. The Respondent without attending the regular course of law got

the law degree while working in the schools in her locality which
are thousand kilometers away from the Law college.

ii. That she has suppressed her previous employment in her

Enrolment Application which is serious in Nature, warranting
disqualification.

iii. That even after her Enrolment as an advocate in Roll No.

Ms.526/2014, she was working as a teacher in school upto
December 2017 and she has not positively said in the counter that
she is not working as on date. Though the above findings of us
themselves are sufficient to suspend her practice on her own
admissions in her counter the xerox copies of the huge name
 9

board along with the photographs filed before this Committee we

are constrained to proceed further in this matter to satisfy our
conscience that we are not unreasonable in sending her out of
practice.

iv. In her counter statement, she has not disputed herself as a Yoga
Teacher. As evidenced from paras 13 and 14 of her counter what
all she has contented is during her law course substitutes were
appointed in the schools in her place. At para 16, she has
admitted that her husband has not completed the law course as he
got the permission to run a centre for Adhar Service, National
e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme,
Department of Information Technology, Government of India.

v. But, the huge boards installed in various places or atleast in her

place would reveal that her husband’s name is shown to be in
posssession of qualification of B.B.A., L.L.B.

vi. Further the respondent’s name also is shown as an advocate on

that board and with that qualification both are running various
business concerns in the name of J.M. Aluminum Fabrication,
Interior Decoration, PVC Doors and then common service
e.Governance Plan. Being an Advocate, she ought not to have
been a party to the above business transactions in view of Rules
47, 48, 49 50 and 52 of Sec. VII of part VI of Chapter II of the Bar
Council of India Rules and Rule 2 of Chapter III of the same. On
this grounds also she has suffered a disqualification under Rule 2
of the chapter III of part VI and of other above Bar Council of India
Rules.

vii. Further, her conduct towards the Court orders as per her own
admission is not only a serious misconduct but also contemptuous
warranting stringent action against her entitlement to practice. At
para 10 of page no.3 of her counter she has admitted that she has
filed a civil suit in O.S.No.149/2017 on the file of the Learned
Principal District Minusif, Kulithurai and there is an order of
statusquo in that. As an advocate she is deemed to be aware of
the meaning of statusquo order which means that the things in a
particular position on the date of order of statusquo should remain
 10

in the same position as it was on the date of the order, unless and
otherwise statusquo anti was granted by the Committee. At para
10 of her counter after saying that Statusquo was granted she has
further said that with the help of the police, she removed the stone
blockade put forth by the complainant so as to enable her to use it
as a pathway as she does not have any other pathway. Thus, she
literally modified the order of the court and altered the suit property
and thus committed the contempt to the detriment of the otherside.
In view of the decision in Haris Uppal case reported in 2003 (2)
sec 45 and Mahipal Singh Rava’s case reported in (2016) 8 SCC
335, she cannot be allowed to practice.

viii. The complainant has marked the colour photographs 15 in number

to show as to how she has misbehaved with him and his rights.
The first photograph would reveal that she was wearing a Dhoti or
Towel and demolishing stone blockade in the disputed pathway.
Next four photographs are really shocking as they exhibit a picture
that she was standing in the midst of fire flame, watching the
destruction caused by the fire to the property in dispute.

ix. Like that other photographs would also reveal the destruction
caused by her.

x. The last photograph would clearly reveal that her husband

claiming to be an Advocate, is running People Legal Rights
Organisation in Kanyakumari District in No.273/2015. The fifth
photograph particularly is in support of her own statement at para
10 of her counter and in that para she has admitted the removal of
stone blockade inspite of the statusquo order with the help of the
Police.

xi. We cannot simply brush aside the terrified and fearful attitude of
the Respondent Advocate as revealed through the photographs.
Her way of standing in the midst of flame and her bold and
fearless attitude in the property in dispute would no doubt make us
to say that she can be easily identified with
Mahakavi Bharathiyar’s dream woman.
 11

xii. But, the question is was it the dream of Mahakavi Bharathiyar

about a woman and would Mahakavi permit a woman to take law
in her hands, firing the property of her opposite party, inspite of
the Statusquo order?. The answer is in the negative.

xiii. Probably, the Respondent woman advocate would have tried to

test the words of Mahakavi Bharathiyar by standing in the flame of
fire to findout whether she could be able to attain the pleasure of
touching “Nandhalala”, as Mahakavi Bharathiyar sung that he
would attain the pleasure of touching “Nandhalala” while touching
the fire. But, unfortunately she tested the same with the fire set by
her on other’s property and hence, we are inclined to hold that she
has attained disqualification by resorting to such a cruel
misconduct.

xiv. The Respondent running so many business concerns, rebellious

Organisation is proved to be spoiling the peaceful atmosphere of
the locality by creating a total threat to the common people in and
around her locality. This is nothing but a serious misconduct
within meaning a sec 35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Hence,
we give liberty to the complainant to come out with such a
complaint against the Respondent Advocate also if he is so
advised.

xv. However, this being the Enrolment Committee we stop ourselves

with a finding that she has been running so many business
concerns, along with her husband, who also has decorated his
name with a law degree though admittedly not completed law
degree.

xvi. She has been running an Organisation called People Legal Rights
Origanisation, Register No.273/2015 within a year from the date of
her enrolment and thus she has attained total disqualification to
practice as an advocate in view of Rules 47 to 52 of Sec VII of part
VI and chapter II and Rule 2 Chapter III of the Bar Council of India
Rules.

xvii. That apart in view of her own admission violating the statusquo
order also, she has to be declared disqualified.
 12

xviii. Further, in view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment in 2017 (5)
CTC 113, there are criminal cases pending against her, the
imprisonment for which is more than three years and in view of the
Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment reported in 2017 (5) CTC P1 113
also she should not be allowed to practice. In fine we hold that:-

(i) The Respondent Advocate while working was undergoing the law
course in a place which is thousand kilometers away from the her
place of working. Hence, she could not have attended the regular
classes as evidenced from the Payment Register Form June 2012
onwards marked by the Complainant and the unquestionable notarised
affidavit filed by the Former Correspondent of the relevant period.

(ii) That she has suppressed her previous employment column is 11 (a)
and (b) of her Enrolment Application by saying monosyllabic answer
‘NO’ to the questions in that column which are reproduced below:-
11 (a) Have you ever been in any employment? (If so, state when and N/A
where you were employed and the nature of such employment if you
have ceased to be employed specify the date of ending of service
and the reason for such ending full particular of all employment and
relieving orders up to the ending of service should be given)

11 (b) Have you any interest as a partner or otherwise in any business, N/A
trade or calling? (Give full particulars)

(iii) That she even after her Enrolment, worked in the school upto
December 2017 and even as on date she has been running so many
concerns in the name of National e.Governance Plan, Common
Service Centers Scheme, Department of Information Technology,
Government of India, J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior Decoration,
PVC Doors, The Xerox, DTP works, Lamination and Spiral binding
shops and there by violated Rules 47 to 52 of Sec.VII of Part VI of
Chapter II and also Rule 2 of Chapter III of the Bar Council of India
Rules as proved from the board installed by her and the photographs
filed by the complainant.

(iv) That in her own admission at para 10 of her counter, she has violated
the Court order of Statusquo and taken possession of the property in
dispute by demolishing the stone blockade and setting fire of her
rival’s place.
 13

(v) That there are criminal cases warranting punishment of more than
three years pending against her, subsequent to her enrolment.

(vi) In view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment in 2017 (5) CTC 113 she is
a leader of Legal Wing of People Legal Rights Organisation along with
her husband namely Mr.A.Jeyasingh who is a District Organiser of the
said Organisation and others, which has created peaceless
atmosphere in the locality. If she is allowed to practice even for one
day it will be a total disrespect to the nobility and dignity of Legal
Profession and sincere Lawyers. Moreover she will go down to any
level to tamper with the Court records and the pending cases against
her, if she is allowed to practice pending proceedings under sec.26 (1)
and 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

(vii) The complainant is given liberty to lodge a complaint under sec. 35 (1)
of the Advocates Act, 1961 also pending the proceedings before the
Bar Council of India under sec.26 (1) and 26 (2) of the Advocates Act,
1961

(viii) Hence, we have no other opinion except to pass an order of interim

suspension of practice in any Courts, Tribunal throughout the territory
of India pending our recommendation for removal permanently from
the rolls of Bar Council of India under the proviso to 26 (1) of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and sec. 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 also.

(ix) With this, we hold that the complaint placed before this Committee
stands allowed, with the cost of Rs.50,000/- against the Respondent
Advocate and she is directed to pay the same within two weeks from
the receipt of the order of the Bar Council of TamilNadu and
Puducherry, to the Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry.

Sd/-xxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx
(R.SINGARAVELAN) (N.CHANDRASEKHARAN)
Senior Advocate Member
Member