Supreme Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa For Entertaining Frivolous Complaint Against Advocate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 24) imposed a cost of Rs 50,000/- on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for entertaining a frivolous complaint against an advocate.

The cost has to be paid to the advocate who faced the proceedings.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while the appeal filed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed disciplinary proceedings against an advocate.

The case arises out of a complaint filed before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa alleging misconduct by the advocate in relation to settlement terms in a 1985 civil suit, in which the advocate represented the plaintiff.

The complainant claimed that he was defrauded by the Consent Terms dated July 1, 2005, and supplementary Consent Terms dated August 24, 2005, and alleged that his property had been fraudulently included in those terms.

On July 6, 2023, BCMG referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for detailed inquiry and disposal.

The advocate challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that neither the complainant nor his father or the father's firm was a party to the 1985 suit. It observed that the complainant had already filed an application to set aside the Consent Terms on grounds of fraud and questioned how any alleged fraud by the parties could be attributed to the advocate representing the plaintiff.

The High Court relied on its earlier ruling in Geeta Ramanugrah Shashtri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, in which it had noted the growing practice of litigants browbeating opposing counsel by filing disciplinary complaints.

The High Court held that prima facie no fraud was attributable to the advocate and that the Bar Council had no reason to believe the advocate was guilty of misconduct warranting referral to the Disciplinary Committee.

Thus, the High Court stayed further disciplinary proceedings against the advocate. BCMG filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court against this order.

From the judgment - Jural Relationship Between Complainant & Advocate Necessary To Invoke Disciplinary Jurisdiction For Professional Misconduct : Supreme Court

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 27606/2023

Case Title – Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Click here to read the judgment