A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India, (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justice V Mohana on Tuesday refused to cancel a police summons served on law firm ‘The Legal Attorneys and Barristers’ in connection with an ongoing  investigation.  However, the bench granted temporary protection from arrest to one of the firm’s advocates, Adv. Hussain Moeen Farooq, for two weeks.

The Court directed the law firm to appear before the police and submit its explanation. At the same time, it allowed the firm to challenge the summons before the High Court. The bench also refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order that had made the law firm a party to ongoing contempt proceedings filed by Phoenix ARC Private Limited, an asset reconstruction company.

Background of the Dispute:

The contempt proceedings arose from an earlier Madras High Court judgment that set aside the sale of properties belonging to Samarpana Charitable Trust to Chennai Metro Rail Limited. The High Court held that Phoenix ARC had a prior charge over the trust’s properties and found that the sale to CMRL was affected by fraud. It noted that CMRL had paid about ₹13.30 crore as compensation and directed it to recover the amount through appropriate legal proceedings.

Concerned that public money might have been diverted, the High Court directed the Chennai Central Crime Branch to investigate complaints filed by Phoenix ARC. During the contempt proceedings, the High Court noted that around ₹6.8 crore had been transferred to the account of The Legal Attorneys and Barristers and therefore added the law firm as a respondent. Subsequently, the Chennai Central Crime Branch issued a summons to the firm as part of its investigation.

Firm Challenges Summons:

 Appearing for the law firm before the Supreme Court, the legal counsel  argued that the police summons was illegal because a Supreme Court judgment restricts the summoning of advocates and requires prior approval from a senior police officer. She also questioned the High Court’s decision to implead the law firm.

Court Questions Firm:

The bench, however, was not inclined to interfere. During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed:

“Why can’t you be called? Your conduct is under scanner before the High Court. There are doubtful transactions. 7 crores! It is a case of complete fraud played by the party on the judicial system. The High Court is rightly taking action.”

The Chief Justice further noted that the High Court had already found the property sale to be suspicious and that a substantial part of the sale proceeds had been transferred to the law firm’s account.

In response, the counsel  submitted that the money represented professional fees paid for legal services. She stated that the firm had appeared for the trust in 69 cases and had made over 600 appearances. She suggested that bank statements could be produced before the High Court to show that the payments were legitimate legal fees.

When she  argued that client-attorney privilege could protect the disclosure of certain information, the Chief Justice remarked that it was:

“a very good ground” to raise before the High Court.

Two-Week Protection:

The Supreme Court advised the firm to separately challenge the police notice before the High Court. After the counsel  expressed concern that the firm’s partners could be arrested in the meantime, the Court granted limited protection and stated:

“While we don’t find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court, we grant liberty to the petitioner to appear and submit their explanation in the contempt proceedings. As regards the notice issued by the State Police, it is directed that the petitioner appear before the police authorities and submit their explanation, but no coercive action shall be taken against Adv Hussain Moeen Farooq for a period of two weeks. Meanwhile, he shall at liberty to approach the High Court for necessary protection.”

Accounts Remain Frozen:

The bench, however, refused the firm’s request to unfreeze its bank accounts.

 Case Details: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS Vs PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. | D No. 36138/2026