The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to investigate the conduct of advocate Vijay Kurle, who attempted to delay the pronouncement of an order in a long-standing tenancy dispute.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, while delivering judgment in Ballam Trifla Singh vs. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors. (Civil Revision Application No. 189 of 2025), expressed strong disapproval of the advocate’s actions, stating:
"Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has resorted to sharp and unfair practice with complete knowledge that the matter is completely heard and kept for passing order.""Advocates are not agents of their clients. They are expected to act with dignity, respect, and as officers of the court.""An advocate shall refuse to represent a client who persists in improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client."
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Human Teeth Not a 'Dangerous Weapon', Biting Injury Attracts Section 323 IPC, Not 324
The court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court, not mere agents of their clients. Justice Jamdar noted:
The revision application had already been argued fully on 4th April 2025 by Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat. The case was adjourned to allow the applicant time to consider withdrawing the application after the court pointed out that the applicant had submitted forged and fabricated documents.
On 9th April 2025, when the court was set to pronounce its order, advocate Vijay Kurle appeared and requested an adjournment, citing plans to file a vakalatnama and argue the case afresh. Despite being informed that arguments had concluded, Kurle insisted on adjournment.
The court referenced rules under Section 49(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, highlighting an advocate’s duty to uphold justice and prevent clients from using unfair tactics. The court added:
Background of the Case
The matter originates from a 1996 eviction suit filed by a landlord against tenants for alleged subletting of a 990 sq. ft. commercial property. In 2016, after 20 years of litigation, the Small Causes Court passed an eviction decree. The tenant’s son, Ballam Trifla Singh, then filed a civil revision application claiming independent ownership of the property.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Arbitrator Can Permit Withdrawal of Claims If No Prejudice Is Caused to Opposing Party
The applicant relied on a 1990 sale deed allegedly executed in his favor. However, the courts found that the document was not registered, lacked proper stamp duty, and appeared to have discrepancies, including a mismatch in property numbers. Evidence also suggested he was a minor at the time the deed was supposedly executed.
Both the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Court rejected the applicant’s claim, calling the documents “fabricated and manipulated.” The courts noted that different versions of sale deeds had been submitted, with altered CTS numbers and conflicting seller identities.
Justice Jamdar noted that after losing the case, the applicant tried to use legal tactics to delay enforcement.
The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 and appointed a Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the premises from the applicant.
Read Also:- Presumption Under Section 16 HAMA Requires Signature of Both Parties to Adoption Deed: Bombay High Court
“Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is directed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle. The observations made are prima facie, and final determination will be made by the Bar Council.”“The conduct of the Applicant shows that not only fraudulent documents were produced, but an attempt was also made to delay the matter even when it was listed for order.”
Justice Jamdar also cited landmark rulings by the Supreme Court, including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, emphasizing that courts must not tolerate abuse of the judicial process.
