Advocate Faces Professional Misconduct Allegations; Nagpur Improvement Trust Directed to Address Petitioner's Grievance
In a significant judgment delivered on April 9, 2026, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court took stern action against an advocate for professional misconduct and directed the removal of unauthorized structures on leased property. The bench, comprising Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta, dealt with the misconduct of Mr. S. D. Chande, an advocate representing multiple respondents without proper authority, and misleading the court with false submissions.
The court identified Mr. Chande's actions as professional misconduct, leading to the issuance of directions to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take appropriate action against him. The bench referred to the Supreme Court's observations in the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., highlighting the crucial role of advocates in the justice delivery system and condemning professional misconduct.
The case also involved allegations of misleading submissions and forged documents presented by respondents, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings against them. The court granted the advocate time to file a reply to the contempt notice but expressed shock at the revelations of misconduct.
In a related grievance, the petitioner sought the removal of unauthorized structures on leased property. The court directed the Nagpur Improvement Trust to remove these structures within six weeks, thereby addressing the petitioner's concerns.
The judgment also allowed the respondents to take action against the advocate for representing them without authority and granted them the liberty to file applications seeking modifications to the court's order.
This judgment underscores the high court's commitment to upholding professional ethics among advocates and ensuring justice for aggrieved parties. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has been tasked with taking swift action, with a decision expected within four months.
Bottom Line:
Misconduct by an Advocate, representing without authority and misleading the court, amounts to professional misconduct. Bar Council directed to take appropriate action.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961 Section 35
Pushpa v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883360
