Sunday, September 20, 2026

Top 5 This Week

spot_img

Related Posts

One Vakalatnama, Seven Clients — Bombay High Court Flags Lawyer’s Conduct, Sends Matter to Bar Council

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has taken serious note of a lawyer appearing for multiple parties without proper authorization, observing that such conduct risks misleading the court and undermining judicial proceedings. The issue has now been referred to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for disciplinary consideration, with a timeline of four months for action.

The case arose from a petition seeking removal of alleged unauthorized constructions on land within the city. During the hearing, certain private respondents attempted to justify their possession by relying on a civil court decree. The petitioner disputed this claim, asserting that the decree did not support them and suggesting it may have been misrepresented.

The Bench remarked that if the decree was indeed forged or inaccurately projected, it would amount to a grave fraud on the court, potentially inviting contempt proceedings. The situation became more concerning when the court discovered that the advocate had filed a vakalatnama for only one respondent but appeared on behalf of seven individuals.

The judges noted that earlier orders had been passed based on submissions made on behalf of those respondents. Observing that reliance on an allegedly forged document had already prompted issuance of contempt notices, the Bench expressed surprise at the manner in which representation was undertaken.

The court concluded that the advocate’s conduct appeared to have misled both the court and the parties involved, describing the act as professional misconduct. It accordingly referred the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, also pointing out that similar objections had been raised against the advocate in the past.

The dispute itself revolves around alleged encroachments, including small commercial establishments such as meat and chicken shops, said to be standing on government land and a leased plot whose possession has not yet been handed over to the petitioner. Authorities informed the court that the unauthorized structure on the leased plot would be removed within six weeks.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular Articles