The Bombay High Court asked the Bar Council to investigate a lawyer who requested an adjournment on the day the court was set to deliver its order. The judge noted that the lawyer’s action appeared to be professional misconduct.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court instructed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to investigate the conduct of an advocate accused of attempting to delay the delivery of a verdict in a case that had already been fully argued and was awaiting a decision.
Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over a single judge bench, expressed that he was ‘prima facie’ convinced that the advocate, Vijay Kurle, had engaged in professional misconduct.
On the day scheduled for the pronouncement of the order, Kurle reportedly appeared in court and requested an adjournment, claiming he intended to file his appearance and argue the matter further. The judge noted that such behavior undermines the responsibilities of an advocate to the court.
Also Read: Action Against Lawyer for Inappropriate Attire: Bombay HC Directs Bar Council
The Court stated,
“The above conduct of Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate is totally unacceptable and prima facie is a misconduct,”
This case involves a protracted eviction dispute concerning a 990-square-foot commercial property in Jogeshwari, Mumbai. The tenant allegedly sublet the premises to a third party specifically, the father of Kurle’s client, Ballam Trifla Singh without the landlord’s consent.
The eviction suit was filed in 1996 and resulted in an eviction order in 2016. Singh later claimed ownership of the property based on a 1990 sale deed, but both the trial court and the appellate court found the document to be fabricated. After unsuccessful attempts in the lower courts, Singh brought the matter to the High Court via a revision application, which was fully argued on April 4, 2025.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Designates 13 Lawyers, Including Two Women, as Senior Advocates
At the conclusion of those arguments, the High Court indicated its intention to dismiss the case with exemplary costs. Singh’s counsel then requested time to consider the possibility of withdrawing the case. When the matter was revisited on April 8, Singh refused to withdraw, and the Court scheduled the case for orders on April 9.
On the day of the pronouncement, advocate Vijay Kurle appeared for the first time, stating he had received instructions to take over the case and sought time to file his vakalatnama and further argue the matter.
The Court pointed out that the arguments had already concluded and there was no basis for reopening them.
Justice Jamdar determined that Kurle was fully aware that the case had reached its final stage and had appeared solely to delay the order’s pronouncement.
The Court remarked that Kurle’s actions suggested a clear attempt to derail the process, stating,
“Thus, Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent/ mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court… The conduct of Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that instead of restraining and preventing the Applicant from resorting to sharp and unfair practices, Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent of the Applicant.”
As a result, the Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to carry out a formal inquiry.
The Court stated,
“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,”
The Court clarified that its order reflects only preliminary findings, and the final decision will rest with the Bar Council.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat, instructed by advocate Pratibha Shelke, represented the applicant, Ballam Singh. Advocate Vijay Kurle, along with advocate Bhagyesha Kurane, also represented Singh.
Advocate Anand A Pande appeared for the respondent, Gyan Prakash Shukla, while Additional Public Prosecutor R S Tendulkar represented the State.
Case Title: Ballam Trifla Singh v Gyan Prakash Shukla