Advocate Enrolled Elsewhere Must File Vakalatnama Along With Maharashtra-Based Lawyer To Appear In Courts Here: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has called for appropriate action against Uttar Pradesh based lawyer Avnendra Kumar for breach of rules that govern lawyers not registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG).Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan observed that despite the Advocates Rules regarding the conditions subject to which an Advocate shall practice, mandating Kumar to file his vakalatnama along with a lawyer enrolled with the BCMG if he was to appear in a court in Maharashtra, his name found no mention in the filed document. To add to Kumar's woes his Bar licence seemed to have expired in December 2022.“Let the copy of this order be immediately forwarded to the Chairman of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to initiate appropriate action agaisnt Mr. Avnendra Kumar,” the bench thus ordered.Not only that, the court further found that the accused - Moinoddin Golder- had filed two bail applications and secured bail from a coordinate bench. The matter came to light during the hearing on Friday. The APP informed the court that the accused had already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of the High Court on 29th November 2022. The said application was filed on 3rd February 2022.The present application was filed on 19th August 2022 through one Advocate Karim Pathan. However, Kumar appeared on behalf of Pathan and sought an adjournment. “Conduct of simultaneously moving two different applications for bail before different benches in the same crime is indeed a very serious act, which needs to be deprecated. Since the co-ordinate bench has already granted bail to the applicant by an order dated 29th November 2022, Registry is directed to immediately place the matter and this order before the Hon'ble Shri. Justice Karnik,” Court ordered.On further probing, the court found that Kumar was not duly registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. However, he submitted that he has already applied for transfer of his membership to Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa from Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. But he didn't tender any proof of the same. The court found that Kumar's identity card was registered with the Bar Council of UP but it had already expired. And as per the rules, Kumar's name didn't figure in the vakalatnama filed by Pathan. “Vakalatnama of Adv. A. Karim Pathan which is filed on recrod on behalf of the applicant – accused does not indicate name or signature of Mr. Avnendra Kumar, meaning thereby there is no Vakalatnama along with Adv. A. Karim Pathan who appears to be on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra, which is in breach of the aforesaid condition.”Accordingly, the court called for the BCMG to take appropriate action against Kumar and also sought for the matter to be placed before Justice Kanik's bench that has earlier granted bail to the accused. Case Title - Moinoddin Golder Aminoddin Golder vs The State of MaharashtraCase Number - CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2632 OF 2022Appearances - Mr. Avnendra Kumar i/b Mr. A. Karim Pathan for the applicant Mr. A.I. Satpute, APP for the respondent – StateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Advocate Enrolled Elsewhere Must File Vakalatnama Along With Maharashtra-Based Lawyer To Appear In Courts Here: Bombay High Court

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags