Acted As Client's Agent: Bombay HC Asks State Bar Council To Enquire Into Lawyer's Conduct Who Sought Adjournment To Delay Order Pronouncement

Remarking that the counsel acted as a “mouthpiece” of his client, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that advocates' first duty is towards the court and that advocates are not the agents of their clients.

"Although it is informed to Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate that the matter is kept for passing order still to delay passing of order he sought adjournment for filing vakalatnama and for arguing the matter. The said conduct clearly shows that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has resorted to sharp and unfair practice with complete knowledge that the matter is completely heard and kept for passing order. Prima facie I am satisfied that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has committed misconduct. Thus, in the facts and circumstances it is necessary to direct that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct enquiry in the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate. It is specifically made clear that the observations made in this order regarding the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate are prima facie and all contentions are expressly kept open to be decided in the said enquiry to be conducted by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, in accordance with law"

When the case was called out in the Court, the counsel requested for the matter to be adjourned and stated that he would file a vakalatnama and thereafter argue the matter. However, the Court responded that the submissions were already made by both the parties in the case and that the order was going to be passed. Yet, the counsel sought for adjournment.

In its order, the Court noted that even after informing him that the matter was kept for passing orders, he requested adjournment. The Court opined that behavior of the counsel was prima facie a misconduct.

It referenced the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by the BCI under Section 49(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961. Placing reliance on the rules, it observed “Thus, an Advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status as an Officer of the Court. An advocate shall conduct himself with dignity and self respect. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client.”

On the counsel's conduct, it said “Although the matter is completely heard on 4th April 2025 and kept for passing order he was seeking time for file vakalatnama and arguing the matter. Thus, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent/mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court.”

The case stemmed from a suit filed in 1996 by a landlord against a tenant alleging that the tenant sublet the premises to one Trifla Singh. In 2016, the suit was decreed directing Trifla to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord.

The present application was filed by the son of Trifla, challenging the decision of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court as well as the Small Causes Court. The Court had come to the finding that the documents on the basis of which the applicant was claiming the right of ownership were manipulated and fraudulent documents.

The High Court also reprimanded the applicant's conduct, noting that he was attempting to delay the matter. It remarked “Thus, the conduct of the Applicant shows that not only fraudulent and manipulated documents were produced but even an attempt is made to delay the matter when the same is kept for passing order.”

Pursuing the evidence, the High Court concurred with the Small Causes Court and Appellate Court's observations that the documents were fraudulent.

It dismissed the application with Rs. 2 lakh cost. It appointed a Court Receiver, directing them to take forcible possession of the suit premises from the applicant.

It further directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an enquiry against the applicant's counsel.

Case title: Ballam Trifla Singh vs. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors. (Civil Revision Application No.189 Of 2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145