Bombay High Court asks Bar Council to probe lawyer who sought adjournment on order day

The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of an advocate accused of attempting to delay the pronouncement of an order in a case that had already been fully argued and was listed solely for delivering a verdict [Ballam Trifla Singh v Gyan Prakash Shukla]..A single judge Bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar said he was 'prima facie' satisfied that the advocate, Vijay Kurle, had committed professional misconduct.The lawyer is said to have appeared in court on the day scheduled for order pronouncement and requested an adjournment on the ground that he intended to file his appearance and argue the matter further.The judge observed that such conduct undermines the duties of an advocate to the court. “The above conduct of Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate is totally unacceptable and prima facie is a misconduct,” the Court stated..The case stems from a long-running eviction dispute over a 990 square feet of commercial property in Jogeshwari, Mumbai, where the tenant had allegedly sublet the premises to a third party — the father of Kurle’s client, Ballam Trifla Singh — without the landlord's consent. The suit, filed in 1996, resulted in an eviction order in 2016. Singh later claimed ownership of the property through a 1990 sale deed, but both the trial court and the appellate court found the document to be fabricated. After losing in the lower courts, Singh approached the High Court through a revision application, which was fully argued on April 4, 2025..At the end of those arguments, the High Court indicated it intended to dismiss the case with exemplary costs. Singh’s counsel then sought time to discuss the possibility of withdrawing the case. When the matter was taken up again on April 8, Singh refused to withdraw, and the Court listed the matter for orders on April 9.On the day of pronouncement, advocate Vijay Kurle appeared for the first time, stating that he had received instructions to take over the case and sought time to file his vakalatnama and argue the matter. The Court pointed out that arguments had already concluded and there was no question of reopening them..Justice Jamdar found that Kurle was fully aware that the matter had reached the final stage and had appeared only to delay the pronouncement of the order. The Court held that Kurle’s actions indicated a clear attempt to derail the process, stating, “Thus, Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent/ mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court... The conduct of Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that instead of restraining and preventing the Applicant from resorting to sharp and unfair practices, Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent of the Applicant.".Subsequently, the Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct a formal enquiry.“Prima facie I am satisfied that Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has committed misconduct. Thus, in the facts and circumstances it is necessary to direct that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct enquiry in the conduct of Mr Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate," the Court stated..The Court, however, clarified that its order only contained preliminary findings and that the final decision would rest with the Bar Council..Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat instructed by advocate Pratibha Shelke earlier appeared for the applicant, Ballam SinghAdvocate Vijay Kurle along with advocate Bhagyesha Kurane also represented Singh. Advocate Anand A Pande appeared for a respondent, Gyan Prakash Shukla Additional PublIc Prosecutor R S Tendulkar represented the State.[Read Order]