Amounts To Misconduct: Bombay High Court Asks Bar Council To Take Action Against Advocate Who Appeared For Multiple Parties Without Vakalatnama
The Bombay High Court held that the advocate had misled the Court as well as the parties, and his mischief amounted to misconduct.
The Bombay High Court has asked the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to consider the matter and take suitable action against an Advocate who represented parties in a case without filing a Vakalatnama.
The High Court held that the advocate had misled the Court as well as the parties, and his mischief amounted to misconduct.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta stated, “We held that these respondents have played fraud upon the Court by relying upon a forged document. Accordingly, we have issued contempt notice against these respondents. Thus, it appears that Mr. Chande has mislead the Court and the parties. The mischief played by Mr. Chande amounts to misconduct. We accordingly refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for taking suitable action against Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate.”
Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar represented the appellant, while Additional Government Pleader A. B. Badar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case emanated from a land dispute where the petitioner sought the removal of unauthorized structure standing on the plot, which was leased in her favour. The Advocate in this case had appeared for respondents 5 to 11. Based on his submissions, the Court had passed two orders dated March 30, 2026 and April 2, 2026.
The Counsel for respondent 7 (Advocate in question) had tendered an application seeking time to file a reply to the contempt notice. The Court had granted the time.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the advocate had filed Vakalatnama only on behalf of respondent 7 and not for the other respondents. The Bench further noticed that despite such status and for all these days, he appeared for respondents 5 to 11. “We may note here that the misconduct at the hands of counsel did not stop here”, the Bench stated while noting that the advocate had attempted to argue that the decree placed on record was a common judgment rendered by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 177/1975 and Special Civil Suit No. 285/1975.
The Bench noted that the Judge of the trial Court had made a note, to avoid confusion as regards status of both the suits and accordingly noted that judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 285/1975 would form part of judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 177/1975 with further direction to keep the judgment of Special Civil Suit No. 285/1975 with the other suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 177/1975. As per the Bench, this direction made it clear that two separate judgments were passed.
“However, Mr. Chande, for no valid reason, has pursued to convince us that it is a common judgment. The misconduct is, therefore, writ large. This is not the first instance in which the conduct of Mr. Chande has been found objectionable. On multiple prior occasions, similar incidents have been overlooked by the Court”, it held.
Coming to the merits of the case, the Bench disposed of the Petition by accepting the statement of the counsel for Nagpur Improvement Trust that the unauthorised structure standing on the plot would be removed within six weeks. On the point of contempt against respondents 5 to 11, particularly against respondent 7, the Bench held that the proceedings would be listed as a suo motu contempt petition.
Cause Title: Pushpa W/o Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5672-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil Mardikar, Advocate P. A. Gupta
Respondent: Additional Government Pleader A. B. Badar, Advocates S. M. Puranik, Kiran Israni, R. R. Chhabra, S. D. Chande