'No Reason Recorded' : Supreme Court Sets Aside BCI Order Dismissing Complaint Against Law Firm, Directs Reconsideration

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India dismissing a revision petition filed by a litigant alleging professional misconduct by Advocates Alok Dhir and Maneesha Dhir, partners of law firm Dhir & Dhir Associates.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan noted that without recording "any reason at all", the BCI rejected the revision petition filed against the order passed by the Bar Council of Delhi which dismissed the complaint.

Even if an order of affirmation does not require elaborate reasons, it cannot be that no reason at all need be recorded, the Court said.

"The 'what', i.e., the conclusion, must have the 'why', i.e., the reasons (at least in brief), to stand on, which is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of affirmation. On this short ground, we set aside the revisional order of the BCI," the bench observed.

The Court directed the BCI to re-consider the revision petition and pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, within six months.

The complaint was filed by one Sailesh Bhansali who had engaged the Dhir and Dhir Associates to handle a DRT matter of his company Madras Petrochem. He alleged that the lawyers acted with a conflict of interest, since Dhirs also ran an Asset Reconstruction Company (Dhir and Dhir ARC), which enabled the ARC to gain confidential information regarding Madras Petrochem. The complainant alleged that this led to a situation whereby Dhir and Dhir ARC acquired the loans of Madras Petrochem and became its largest lender. The complainant claimed that he was misled by the lawyers into giving a "no-objection" letter for their representation, as the connection between the law firm and the ARC was not fully disclosed to him then.

The Bar Council of Delhi rejected the complaint on the ground of the "no-objection" issued by the litigant.

The petitioner was represented by Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. and Aditya N. Mehta instructed by A. Karthik, AOR.

Respondents were represented by : Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv., Ashu Kansal, Dipanshu Krishnan, and Karan Batura, AOR

Case : Sailesh Bhansali vs Alok Dhir and others | CIVIL APPEAL Diary No. 36274/2024

Click here to read the order