Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Exposes Lawyer's Deception, Refers Him to Bar Council in Property Row

In a strongly worded order that underscores the sanctity of court proceedings, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred advocate S.D. Chande to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct. The court found he appeared for multiple respondents without proper authorization via vakalatnama and misled it by relying on a forged document in a dispute over unauthorized constructions on leased land. Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta also directed the removal of the illegal structure within six weeks, disposing of petitioner Pushpa Gupta's writ petition while keeping contempt proceedings alive.

Unauthorized Structures Spark High-Stakes Battle

The case, Pushpa w/o Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 7236 of 2024), revolves around a plot leased to petitioner Pushpa Gupta, where unauthorized structures had encroached, blocking possession handover. Private respondents, including nos. 5 to 11, defended their hold by producing a civil court decree—Annexure 2 from a civil application—claiming it justified their possession. Pushpa alleged this decree was fabricated or misused, unrelated to her favor, as it pertained to dismissed suits (Regular Civil Suit No. 177/1975 and Special Civil Suit No. 285/1975).

Timeline highlights include prior court orders on March 30 and April 2, 2026, where the bench noted fraud via the forged document, issuing contempt notices. Respondents complied partially by depositing amounts, but the lawyer's role unraveled during hearings.

Lawyer's Bold Claims Unravel in Court

Petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Anil Mardikar assisted by P.A. Gupta, pressed for structure demolition and contempt enforcement. Nagpur Improvement Trust 's counsel S.M. Puranik committed to removal within six weeks, a promise the court accepted.

The drama peaked with S.D. Chande, counsel for respondent no. 7, who shockingly admitted filing vakalatnama only for no. 7, yet appeared for nos. 5 to 11 throughout. Despite this, he argued the decree was a "common judgment" across suits, citing para 14: “This judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 285/75 also forms the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 177/7, and the copy of this judgment be also kept in the said suit.” The bench rejected this as "misleading," clarifying separate judgments existed—one dismissing RCS 177/1975—and labeled it further misconduct, noting prior overlooked incidents.

State counsel A.B. Badar and others for respondents 2 and 3 stayed peripheral, as focus shifted to Chande's actions.

Supreme Court Echoes Demand Ethical Backbone from Bar

Drawing from Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. (2025 (6) SCC 416), the bench decried advocates' role in "ill-motivated litigations," quoting: “People repose immense faith in Judiciary... No professional much less legal professional, is immuned from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.” This precedent reinforced Chande's referral, with orders and petition copies forwarded for "appropriate charge" within four months.

The court distinguished procedural notes (para 14) from actual common judgments, exposing Chande's "pursued" misinformation.

Key Observations

"Mr. Chande has mislead the Court and the parties. The mischief played by Mr. Chande amounts to misconduct. We accordingly refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for taking suitable action against Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate."

"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."

"Every Advocate putting his signatures on the Vakalatnamas... is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness." ( Bhagwan Singh citation)

Petition Closed, But Contempt Clouds Gather

The writ stands disposed: Nagpur Improvement Trust must raze structures in six weeks, redressing Pushpa's core grievance. Affected respondents can seek modifications to strictures and act against Chande for unauthorized representation. Contempt against nos. 5-11, especially no. 7, lists May 5, 2026, as suo motu proceedings.

This ruling, aligning with reports of the court's pull-up over decree misuse in unauthorized construction pleas, signals zero tolerance for bar overreach. Future cases may see swifter Bar Council scrutiny, bolstering judicial integrity amid rising ethical lapses.