The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred an advocate to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct after it was revealed that he had been representing several respondents without filing a valid Vakalatnama. The Court, while addressing a petition for the removal of unauthorized structures, observed that the advocate had misled both the Court and the parties involved.
Background
The petitioner, Pushpa W/o Sanjay Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of unauthorized structures on a plot leased in her favor, noting that possession had not been handed over. During the proceedings, Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate, appeared for respondent nos. 5 to 11.
However, during the hearing on April 9, 2026, it was revealed that Mr. Chande had filed a Vakalatnama only on behalf of respondent no. 7. Despite this limited authorization, he had appeared for respondent nos. 5 to 11 during previous hearings, leading to the passing of orders on March 30, 2026, and April 2, 2026. In those orders, the Court had issued contempt notices against the respondents for allegedly relying on a forged document.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
The Court expressed shock at the revelation that the counsel lacked the authority to represent most of the parties he claimed to be appearing for. The Bench, comprising Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta, noted:
“Thus, it appears that Mr. Chande has mislead the Court and the parties. The mischief played by Mr. Chande amounts to misconduct.”
The Court further observed that the misconduct continued during the current hearing. Mr. Chande attempted to argue that two separate suits—Regular Civil Suit No. 177/1975 and Special Civil Suit No. 285/1975—were decided by a “common judgment,” despite evidence that the suits had separate decrees and that one had been dismissed. The Court clarified that the trial judge’s note to keep a copy of one judgment in the file of another suit did not make it a common judgment.
The Court remarked:
“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.”
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. $2025 (6) SCC 416$, the High Court highlighted the gravity of the situation:
“The matter assumes serious concern when the Advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill-motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes.”
Decision
The High Court passed the following orders:
- Disciplinary Reference: The Court referred the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take suitable action against Mr. S. D. Chande. The Bar Council has been directed to frame appropriate charges and take a decision preferably within four months.
- Removal of Structures: Regarding the merits of the petition, the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) submitted that the unauthorized structure on the petitioner’s plot would be removed within six weeks. The Court accepted this statement and disposed of the writ petition.
- Contempt Proceedings: The Court directed that the contempt proceedings against respondent nos. 5 to 11 be listed on May 5, 2026, as a suo motu contempt petition.
- Liberty to Respondents: Respondent nos. 5, 6, and 8 to 11 were granted liberty to take appropriate action against Mr. Chande for representing them without authority.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Pushpa W/o Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
- Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7236 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
- Date: 09-04-2026.
