Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Advocate, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Wednesday (September 24) quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Narula under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Holding that no prima facie case of professional misconduct was established, the Court held the complaint frivolous and directed its dismissal. It further imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the BCMG for entertaining the baseless complaint, ordering the amount to be paid to the advocate. The ruling came while dismissing BCMG’s appeal against a Bombay High Court stay order.
The matter originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar in 2022 against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He claimed to be the heir of Devji Parmar, a former partner in M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had entered into a development agreement with Nusli Randelia concerning land in Village Valnai, Malad. Disputes over the property had resulted in multiple suits, including one filed by M/s. Unique Construction in the Bombay High Court.
According to the complainant, consent terms were filed and accepted by the High Court without the knowledge or participation of his predecessor or their alleged partnership interests. He alleged that advocate Narula, appearing for M/s. Unique Construction, suppressed material facts and was complicit in fraudulent settlement proceedings. Additional allegations included forgery, impersonation of Randelia, and deprivation of the rightful share of the heirs of Devji Parmar.
On July 6, 2023, the Judge-Advocate of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, recording only that a prima facie case existed. This order was challenged before the Bombay High Court, which stayed further proceedings. BCMG appealed the stay before the Supreme Court.
Counsel for BCMG argued that the High Court prematurely intervened in a reference order, which only required a prima facie finding, and that remedies before the Bar Council of India were available. The respondent-advocate opposed, asserting that no professional relationship existed with the complainant or his predecessor, that the consent terms were still valid, and that the complaint lacked foundation. He further contended that merely identifying a party to consent terms could not constitute misconduct.
The key statutory provision invoked was Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which requires the State Bar Council to form a reasoned belief of misconduct before referring a complaint to its Disciplinary Committee. The matter thus centered on whether the referral order complied with statutory requirements and whether allegations against the advocate disclosed any misconduct within the meaning of the Act.
The Court noted: “It is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent-advocate never represented Nusli Randelia, Dara Sarkari, or M/s. Volga Enterprises in the suit before the High Court.” It recorded that Narula “had simply identified the plaintiff being the authorized representative of M/s. Unique Construction in the Consent Terms, which stand undisturbed to date.”
The Bench stated: “Thus, by mere identification of the plaintiff, the respondent-advocate cannot be held liable to face proceedings under Section 35 of the 1961 Act.” It further observed: “Indisputably, the Consent Terms taken on record by the High Court continue to hold good and have not been recalled or rescinded.”
The Court remarked: “Devji Parmar was not a party to the suit. Had there been any semblance of a right or claim of Devji Parmar in the suit property, Nusli Randelia would definitely have sought his impleadment in the suit.”
On the relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the Court stated: “Since the respondent-advocate was not representing the complainant or his predecessor Devji Parmar, there was no justification behind his arraignment in the complaint for alleged misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the 1961 Act.”
It continued: “His prosecution, as being the lawyer of the opposite party in the suit before the High Court, was highly objectionable, totally impermissible, and absolutely uncalled for.” The Court recorded: “Ordinarily, the existence of a jural relationship between the complainant and the advocate concerned is a precondition for the invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the ground of ‘professional misconduct’.”
The Court then referred to Section 35: “Recording of reasons to believe that the advocate has committed misconduct is a sine qua non before the complaint can be referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry.” It cited precedent, noting: “A State Bar Council not only receives a complaint but is required to apply its mind to find out whether there is any reason to believe that any advocate has been guilty of professional or other misconduct.”
The Bench concluded: “The order passed supra by the Judge-Advocate, referring the complaint to the DC, is absolutely cryptic and laconic for it does not record any satisfaction to the effect that the respondent-advocate had committed misconduct as provided under Section 35 of the 1961 Act.”
The Supreme Court directed that “the Complaint No. 27 of 2023 filed by the complainant, before BCMG and all proceedings sought to be undertaken in furtherance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside.” It held that “the pending writ petition before the High Court shall stand closed.”
“Cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is imposed on the appellant-BCMG for entertaining the frivolous complaint and for dragging the respondent-advocate Shri Rajiv Narula to this Court.” It further ordered: “The said cost shall be deposited with the Registry of the Bombay High Court within a period of four weeks from today, and thereafter, be paid to the respondent-advocate Shri Rajiv Narula.”
“The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. All Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Case Title: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1147
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27606 of 2023
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
