Arham Jain
The Tamil Nadu Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) was recently directed by the Madras High Court to look into claims that a phony legal practice and its agents were involved in fraudulent transactions concerning specific land in Chennai’s Mylapore.
A company called “JMI Law Associates” was the subject of the investigation, along with a guy named Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim who reportedly managed the firm despite not being a lawyer and two other people connected to it: an attorney named Preethi Baskar and a man named Kamalesh Chandrasekaran.
The claims that representatives of the “law firm” had initially represented the landowners in specific rounds of litigation against encroachers and then participated in a number of transactions purportedly intended to coerce landowners into giving up their land were taken seriously by Justice AD Jagadish Chandira.
The judge was further dissatisfied to see that the “law firm” had advertised its services on social media sites like LinkedIn by citing regular court rulings.
“In fact, the daily orders being granted by this court have been cited with the names of some of the sitting Hon’ble Judges of this Court to give a fallacious impression to the common people/litigant, which is highly deprecated,” the Court stated.
The Court reaffirmed that the legal profession is meant to be a noble one rather than a business or commerce, and that attorneys are required to be extremely fair and honest.
Abuse of court proceedings must be abolished from the legal profession. Filibuster tactics are also considered professional misconduct if they are used by an advocate, the judge continued.
According to the Court, the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the CB-CID should both conduct a comprehensive investigation into the alleged criminal actions of JMI Law Associates and its agents.
It was mandated that the CBCID look into JMI Law Associates’ and its affiliates’ operations. Additionally, the CBCID was mandated to investigate if the aforementioned company and people associated with it are the subject of any ongoing legal proceedings.
The three lawyers connected to the firm—Preethi Baskar, Mani Bharathi, and Abel Selvakumar—as well as their associates were requested to have their educational backgrounds and enrollment verified by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Additionally, JMI Law Associates’ eligibility to practice law and any vakalats the firm may have filed in courts or tribunals had to be confirmed by the State Bar Council.
Advocate Preethi Baskar also made several cross-allegations against advocate S Ganesan, the other side’s attorney, during the sessions. The Bar Council was instructed by the Court to look into these claims as well.
The Court further stated that the Bar Council ought to take action against attorneys who violate the rules prohibiting them from advertising themselves or soliciting jobs. In order to prevent the public from being misled by ads from phony law offices, the Court also demanded that a press statement be prepared.
While considering a civil revision appeal submitted by Kamalesh Chandrasekaran, the Court took note of the matter. In order to challenge a trial court’s denial of an interim injunction preventing three individuals—MA Noor Jehan Beevi, KA Shaik Madar, and Abdul Hassan—from alienating particular land, Chandrasekaran had petitioned the High Court.
According to Chandrasekaran, he had previously reached a deal to purchase land from the three landowners after paying to drive out a number of encroachers from the property. It was also contended, that the landowners later withdrew from the agreement and began discussing the potential sale of the site to a business named Life Style Builders. Therefore, he went to the trial court to prevent the completion of any such agreement. Chandrasekaran went to the High Court when the trial court refused to provide any such temporary relief. But when the landowners accused Chandrasekaran and his lawyers of a number of unethical actions, the situation took a more serious turn.
The landowners said that Advocate Preethi Bhaskar, Chandrasekaran’s attorney, had previously represented them in disputes involving the same property.
Following an investigation, the Court was ultimately informed that Jamal Mohammad Ibrahim, a non-legal professional, was the owner of the “law firm” to which advocate Bhaskar belonged, JMI legal Associates. The “law firm” was dissolved in July 2024, the Court was subsequently informed. But since the Court pointed out that “JMI Law Associates” had sent out a legal notice on November 18, 2024, this allegation was refuted.
Advocate Bhaskar ultimately apologized for any error she may have made, attributing it to her lack of expertise. She further stated that the “now-dissolved” JMI Law Associates Firm was no longer connected to her.
The Court, however, refused to close the matter.
“The entire episode discloses some professional misconduct, misrepresentation, unethical practices, into which, this court cannot indulge and the same need to be addressed and investigated at once only by proper investigating agencies,” the Court reasoned.
The matter will be heard again after three weeks.
Case Name- Kamalesh Chandrasekaran v M.A.Noor Jehan Beevi & Ors.
Case Number- C.R.P.No.443 of 2025
Bench- Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com