New Delhi, September 24 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for a “malicious prosecution” of a lawyer, which identified the opposite party in only one affidavit.
Not only a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the special holiday petitions (SLP) filed against the Bombay High Court’s decision, which was to reduce disciplinary proceedings against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, but also Rs. 50,000 each on BCMG and the complainant to cause him to cause “infinite grief and oppression”.
The case arose from a dispute between former lecturer Banidhi Annaji Bhakad, former lecturer of Ismail Yusuf Junior College, and the college inspired him to allegedly file a complaint against Advocate Shastri for false statements in a chamber summons affidavit.
According to the complainant Bhakd, the statement prescribed in the affidavit was eventually found to be false, and therefore, the defendant-advocate supported the affidavit, supporting false repetition and made a wrong statement based on the content of affidavits.
In its judgment, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the complaint, given that the defendant-advocate did not give himself any affidavit and that he was not made responsible for the content of the affidavit by identifying the counter.
Confirming the decision of the Bombay High Court to prevent the “completely absurd and unstable” complaint, a bench led by Justice Vikram Nath said: “A lawyer, by mere verification of affidavit, does not become a private for the contents of the affidavit. There was also a disgrace of matter, but also on the malicious and fickle insistence directed against the advocate, which was also established on the opposite party.
In his judgment, the Apex court overshadowed the BCMG, given that the order passed by it – directing the registration of the complaint and mentioning the same to the disciplinary committee (DC) for investigation – was illegal on the face of the record and there was a limit on distortions.
“This is clearly a case of malicious prosecution of the advocate at the behest of rival litigation,” the bench said that the costs incurred will be deposited with the registry of the Bombay High Court within four weeks, from where they would be paid to the advocate Shastri.
,
PDS/VD