[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Parasmal Uttamchand Jain vs Bar Counil Of India Thru Secretary, And ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2026:BHC-AS:9887-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7077 OF 2019
Parasmal Uttamchand Jain ]
Aged about 58 years, Adult ]
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Mohan ]
Smruti, Behind SBI, Lekha Nagar, ]
CIDCO, Nashik - 9. ] ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Bar Council of India ]
Through Secretary, ]
Having their office at 21, Rouse ]
Avenue Institutional Area, Near ]
Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002 ]
]
2. Shanshank Chandrakant Thatte, ]
3. Mrs. Sucheta Shashank Thatte, ]
Advocate Thatte Building, 36-C, ]
Gokhale Marg, South, Dadar (W), ]
Mumbai - 28. ]
]
4. Mrs. Rajshree Prafulla Phadke, ]
Advocate Room No.24, Examiners ]
Press Bldg., 3rd Floor, Dalal Street, ]
Mumbai - 400 006. ]
]
5. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa]
Through their Secretary having their ]
Office at 2nd Floor, High Court ]
Extension, Fort, Mumbai - 32. ] .... Respondents.
Mr. S. G. Gokhale i/b Mr. Sandeep Jalan for the Petitioner.
Mr. G.K. Vishwanath i/b Mr. Amit Bhardwaj for Respondent nos. 2
& 4.
Ms. Rutuja Joshi i/b Mr. Prasad L. Gajbiye for Respondent no.1-
BCI.
Mr. Yogendra Rajgor for Respondent no.5.
1/10
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:24:11 :::
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
Judgment was reserved on 20th February 2026
Judgment is pronounced on 26th February 2026
JUDGMENT:
(PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)
1. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 11th November 2017
passed by Respondent no.1 - Bar Council of India, dismissing the
Petitioner's Revision Application filed under Section 48A of the
Advocates Act, 1961 ("Act") against Respondent nos. 2 to 4.
2. Since the matter has a long history, the relevant facts are
summarized below:
(a) Respondent no.2 and his father claimed to be owners of an
immovable property, which had been purchased by them
from a public charitable Trust. On 23 rd March 1995,
Respondent no.2 and his (deceased) father executed a sale
deed in Petitioner's favour for the said immovable property.
At that time, Respondent no.2 was admittedly not enrolled as
an advocate. The Petitioner alleges that Respondent no.2 and
his father wrongfully sold the said property to the Petitioner
without obtaining the requisite no objection certificate from
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
the Charity Commissioner's Office.
(b) On 22nd April 1998, Respondent no.2 was enrolled as an
advocate with Respondent no.5-Bar Council of Maharashtra
and Goa.
(c) Around then, the Charity Commissioner issued a show cause
notice to the Petitioner, which trigerred a protracted litigation
that continues till date and the details of which are not
material to this Petition. In the meantime, on 15 th April 2002,
the Petitioner filed a complaint before Respondent no.5
against Respondent no.2, registered as D.C. Case No.75 of
2002. The complaint alleged professional misconduct
specifically on the ground that Respondent no.2 had wrongly
claimed ownership of Trust property and dealt with it as his
own. Concurrently proceedings before the Charity
Commissioner continued, ultimately resulting in an order
restoring the property to the Trust.
(d) The Petitioner's first complaint before Respondent no.5 was
subsequently transferred to Respondent no.1 - Bar Council of
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
India. By an order dated 4th April 2009, Respondent no.1
dismissed the Petitioner's first complaint, inter alia, on the
ground that civil proceedings had already been initiated and
that Respondent no.2 could not be proceeded against under
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for a transaction
undertaken prior to his enrollment as an advocate. The
Petitioner's challenge to the said order vide Special Leave
Petition (Diary) No.20048 of 2009 was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3rd August 2009.
(e) Thereafter the petitioner initiated a second round of
proceedings before Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.5.
On 23rd December 2010, the Petitioner submitted a
representation to the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the Bombay High Court inter alia alleging that Respondent
nos. 2 to 4 had issued threats to him due to various
proceedings initiated against Respondent no.2. This
representation was forwarded to Respondent no.5 and
registered as Complaint No.163 of 2011 under Section 35 of
the Advocates Act, 1961. On 5th August 2015, Respondent
no.5 by its order dismissed this second complaint. The
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
Petitioner's Revision Application under Section 48A of the
Advocates Act, 1961 before Respondent no.1 was dismissed
by the impugned order dated 11th November 2017 leading to
this Petition.
3. At the outset, Mr. Yogendra Rajgor, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent no.1, raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the Petition. He contended that the
Petitioner's second complaint was founded on the same cause of
action as the earlier complaint and was therefore not maintainable.
He further contended that a private dispute emanates from a
property transaction which took place prior to Respondent no.2's
enrollment as an advocate and which is already the subject matter
of several proceedings.
4. Mr. S.G. Gokhale, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner argued that the subject matter of the two complaints is
distinct. While the first complaint pertained to professional
misconduct in relation to the property transaction, the second
complaint concerns professional and other misconduct due to
threats to life issued by Respondent nos. 2 to 4 between 2007 and
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
2011 to the Petitioner and his family, whilst the Petitioner was
attending proceedings before various Courts and statutory
Authorities. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 were not parties in the first
complaint. He relied upon several Non-Cognizable Reports lodged
at Worli Police Station during the said period. He contended that
Respondent no.1 erred in dismissing the Revision Application,
despite acknowledging these subsequent developments in paragraph
14 of the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, these
acts constitute "other misconduct" within the meaning of Section 35
of the Advocates Act, 1961 and warrant disciplinary action.
5. Mr. G.K. Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent nos. 2 and 4 opposed the Petition and submitted that
the allegations are false, defamatory and constitute an abuse of
process of law. He submitted that having failed in the earlier round
of proceedings, the Petitioner has resorted to vexatious litigation to
harass Respondent no.2. The allegations of threats were specifically
denied. He submitted that the original registered sale deed dated 7 th
March 1994 by which the property was conveyed by the Trust in
favour of Respondent no.2 and his father remains in the possession
of the Petitioner, who has failed to return the same. He submitted
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
that Civil Suit No. 3827 of 2003 filed by the Petitioner and his wife
against Respondent no.2 is pending adjudication before this Court.
Accordingly, the Petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused the material
on record. We find no merit whatsoever in this Petition. It is not in
dispute that the Petitioner's property transaction with Respondent
no.2 took place on 23rd March 1995 and Respondent no.2 was
enrolled as an advocate only on 22 nd April 1998. The transaction
forming the genesis of the dispute was admittedly undertaken prior
to Respondent no.2's enrolment and in his personal capacity. In the
first round of complaints, Respondent no.1 concluded that such a
transaction could not form the basis of disciplinary proceedings for
professional misconduct and dismissed the Petitioner's complaint
on 4th April 2009. This issue achieved finality when the Petitioner's
Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 3rd August 2009. The second complaint, though couched in
different language with a few additional facts and parties, is
founded on the same underlying dispute relating to the sale of Trust
property. In our view, disciplinary mechanism under the Act cannot
be invoked to reagitate issues which have already been examined
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
and concluded. This second round of complaint including the
present Petition amounts to harassment and is an abuse of process
of the Court.
7. Although Mr. Gokhale has strenuously argued that the subject
matter of the first complaint and the second complaint is entirely
different giving rise to a fresh cause of action, we are unable to
agree to the same. A perusal of pleadings in the present Petition
demonstrates that the principal grievance of the Petitioner is on the
sale of the property. This is also evident from the following
questions of law framed by the Petitioner in this Petition :-
"(a) Whether an Advocate can be held guilty of Professional
Misconduct for unlawfully withholding/ usurping a Public Trust
Property; or
(b) Whether an Advocate can be held guilty of Professional
Misconduct for unlawfully withholding / usurping a Public Trust
Property, post his enrollment as an Advocate, although the
concerned Advocate was not an advocate when the relevant
Public Trust property was unlawfully acquired?"
8. The Petitioner attempted to distinguish the second complaint
by alleging threats to his life from Respondent nos.2 to 4 between
2007 and 2011. Whilst the threats are denied by Respondent nos. 2
to 4, even assuming their occurrence no explanation was
forthcoming from the Petitioner to our query as to why private
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
complaints were not filed contemporaneously before the concerned
Courts. The existence of Non-Cognizable Reports cannot
automatically justify the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. We
find the allegations vague and insufficient to establish professional
or other misconduct against Respondent nos. 2 to 4. The impugned
order correctly has considered all the relevant facts and held at
paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows:-
"13. .............In view of dismissal of this complaint, it is not
open to the complainant to file the present complaint on the
same allegations as were made or ought to have been made in
the earlier complaint. Addition of two more persons, namely
respondents No.2 and 3 in the present complaint does not
change the position at all. No prima facie case of professional
misconduct is disclosed in the complaint against respondents
No.2 and 3. They only got caught in the present bitter
litigation between the revisionist and respondent no.1 only
because they are related to the latter. There is no credible
material against them and they have been impleaded only on
the basis of conjectures and surmises. One cannot be tried
for the same thing twice. General principles of res-judicata
and of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India do apply to
the disciplinary proceedings under the Act as they essentially
are sub-species of principles of natural justice. All
allegations as relate to the aforesaid purchase made by
respondent no.1 and his father in the year 1994 cannot be re-
agitated in the present proceedings. To this extent, the
controversy stands closed by the previous decision on merits
of DC to BCI, which was latter on confirmed by the
Honorable SC of India."
"14. The allegations of the complainant pertaining to the
conduct of the respondent No.1 and others in various
proceedings before Courts of law and other forums, in the
absence of any formal complaint from the concerned
Court/forum, do not prima facie make out a case of
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
professional or other misconduct as against respondents
especially because complainant himself is an interested
person, being involved in litigation of civil and criminal nature
with respondent No.1. In the light of this discussion,
application of grant of interim stay on 14.02.2016 also stands
dismissed."
9. We may also note that the dispute between the parties is the
subject matter of Civil Suit No.3827 of 2003, which is pending
adjudication before this Court. Where issues concern title,
possession or alleged civil wrongs, the appropriate remedy lies
before the competent civil forum. The disciplinary jurisdiction of
Respondent nos. 1 and 5 is not intended to serve as a substitute for
adjudication of private civil disputes. Due process has been
followed by Respondent no.1 and it has correctly refused to
interfere in a private dispute. Respondent no.1 has assigned cogent
reasons for dismissing the Revision Application. No case for
interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is made out by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, Writ Petition no. 7077 of 2019 is dismissed without
costs.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [M. S. KARNIK, J.]
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
(5) WP-7077-2019- BCI.doc BDPSPS
