Fraudulent Settlement Sparks Supreme Court Recall | Detailed Bar Council Probe Ordered Into ‘Well-Planned Conspiracy’ And Forged Representation
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has ordered a detailed inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the disposal of a Special Leave Petition based on an alleged settlement agreement dated 24 October 2024. The Bench has directed the Bar Council of India to conduct a thorough investigation into the role of the advocates involved in the preparation, filing, and conduct of the proceedings leading to the order dated 13 December 2024. The earlier order allowing the appeal in terms of the settlement has been recalled, and the Special Leave Petition has been restored to its original number. The matter is scheduled to be listed after the inquiry report is submitted by the end of October 2025.
The proceedings stem from a dispute originally adjudicated by the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 598 of 2016, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had filed the suit based on an alleged agreement to sell (Mahadnama) dated 26 December 1986 for a total consideration of Rs. 63,000, claiming full payment by December 1989. The Trial Court found the agreement to be neither genuine nor duly executed, citing testimony from an attesting witness denying his signature and discrepancies in the documents, including the purchase date of the stamp paper and differences in the name on it. Receipts submitted as evidence were deemed fabricated.
The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove execution of a valid contract and had misled the court with forged evidence. The Mahadnama, being unregistered, could not be independently verified. The Appellate Court also noted the plaintiff's failure to present payment receipts in prior eviction proceedings.
On further appeal, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal at the admission stage, concluding there was no substantial question of law and affirming that the case was based on fabricated evidence.
Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, and on 13 December 2024, it was represented to the Bench that the parties had reached a settlement on 24 October 2024. The Settlement Agreement was taken on record, and the appeal was allowed in its terms, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The agreement acknowledged possession of the suit land by the first party, confirmed full payment of sale consideration, and provided for execution of a sale deed within three months.
In May 2025, the respondent filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the 13 December 2024 order, alleging he had not entered into any settlement, had not authorised any counsel to appear, and was unaware of the proceedings. He claimed the settlement agreement was forged and that a caveat had been fraudulently filed in his name to avoid service of notice, preventing his participation in the case.
The respondent stated he discovered the matter through his son-in-law, who came across the Supreme Court order while reviewing updates on the Indian Kanoon website regarding ongoing execution proceedings. The respondent contended that the proceedings constituted a conspiracy by the petitioner and others to deceive the Court.
A preliminary inquiry was ordered on 13 May 2025, with the Secretary-General directed to nominate a senior officer to investigate the circumstances, including how it was made to appear that counsel had been engaged for the respondent to consent to the settlement. The 13 December 2024 order was recalled pending inquiry, and the SLP was restored.
The Court recorded that "the facts leading to the disposal of the Special Leave Petition in terms of the alleged settlement agreement requires to be examined in detail." It further stated that "the role of advocates involved in preparation of the settlement agreement, its filing and conduct of the proceedings also need to be enquired into." The Bench noted that "we have refrained from drawing any conclusions for the present."
It was observed that the respondent had appeared before the Court through video conferencing and reiterated that he had not engaged any advocate in the matter. The Court took on record submissions from counsel representing advocates whose names were listed in the 13 December 2024 order, some of whom stated they had no involvement in the case.
The Court recorded its view that the seriousness of the allegations warranted a comprehensive investigation by the Bar Council of India, rather than limiting the matter to the preliminary inquiry initially directed to be undertaken by the Secretary-General.
The Supreme Court directed the Bar Council of India to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter and submit a report to the Court by the end of October 2025. The order dated 13 December 2024 was recalled, and the Special Leave Petition restored to its original number. The Court ordered that the matter be listed in the first week of November 2025 after receipt of the report.
The Court specified that the inquiry should examine how and at whose instance it was made to appear that counsel were engaged for the respondent to consent to the settlement agreement, as well as the role of the advocates involved in the preparation, filing, and conduct of the proceedings.
The earlier preliminary inquiry directed on 13 May 2025 was superseded by this direction to the Bar Council of India, reflecting the Court's decision to ensure a more thorough and independent investigation.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Vivya Nagpal, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Rai, Adv.; Mr. Gyanant Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sarthak Shankar, Adv.; Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv.; Ms. Osheen Jain, Adv.; Mr. Priyanshu Kunar, Adv.; Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Saurajay Nanda, Adv.; Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv.; Ms. Raadhika Chawla, Adv.; Ms. Mehak Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. Prabhat Pachauri, Adv.; Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR; Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR; Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.; Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. M. Khanna, AOR.
Case Title: Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 7144/2025 in C.A. No. 14414/2024 @ SLP(C) No. 25905/2024
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
