Karnataka High Court drops disciplinary proceedings against lawyer upon apology

The Karnataka High Court recently dropped disciplinary proceedings against an advocate upon an unconditional apology tendered by him in court. [M Venkatesh v. The Commissioner, BBMP].The Division Bench of Chief Justice (CJ) Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar stated in its judgment of March 4 that it would not proceed any further against advocate G Sanjay.A video of the hearing in the case on March 3 had gone viral in which the CJ was seen rebuking the lawyer after he had failed to inform the Bench that under similar facts and circumstances, one of the appeals in which he was appearing had been dismissed on merits by the same court before.The High Court in its March 4 judgment noted, "The advocate appearing for the appellant Sri G Sanjay has submitted that he has admitted his mistake and it is for the first time that he has committed such a mistake and learnt a lesson and solemnly assures the Court that such instances will not occur in future and he tenders his unconditional and profuse apologies in this regard. Considering the young age of the advocate and the assurance given by Sri DR Ravishankar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that in future, Sri G Sanjay would be more careful and will not commit any such mistake, we do not propose to proceed any further"..The CJ had earlier come down heavily upon the advocate, saying that the lawyer was trying to take advantage of the High Court. "Are we supposed to remember everything, he is the same counsel... we will restrain him from practising anymore, we will remove your gown. I have never seen it in my entire career, a lawyer like this. I never thought I would have to face such a situation in the Karnataka High Court," the CJ had remarked.The High Court had then issued notice to him to explain his conduct and why the matter should not be referred to the Bar Council for taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings. .The advocate was appearing before the Court in a commercial appeal against an arbitral award. The Bench had noted that the grounds which had been raised by the appellant were primarily relating to appreciation of evidence, which is not a ground available under Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral awards) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As an arbitral award can be challenged on the grounds that it is patently illegal and contrary to public policy, which had not been established by the appellant, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal. .Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar also appeared for the appellant, and Advocate Ramu S represented the respondent. .[Read Judgment]