Read Time: 05 minutes
Kumar disclosed to the court that he is not currently registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. However, he mentioned that he has applied for the transfer of his membership from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take necessary action against the advocate who appeared without a Vakalatnama and without being enrolled in the State roll of advocates.
“Vakalatnama of Adv. A. Karim Pathan which is filed on record on behalf of the applicant – accused does not indicate name or signature of Mr. Avnendra Kumar, meaning thereby there is no Vakalatnama along with Adv. A. Karim Pathan who appears to be on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra, which is in breach of the aforesaid condition,” the order reads.
A single judge bench of Justice PK Chavan was hearing a bail application filed by one Moinoddin Golder Aminoddin Golder.
The court was informed that bail had already been granted by a coordinate bench on November 29, 2022, in an application filed on February 3, 2022. Despite this, the accused filed another bail application on August 19, 2022, through Adv. A. Karim Pathan.
On Wednesday, Advocate Avnendra Kumar, holding for Advocate A. Karim Pathan, requested an adjournment.
Kumar disclosed to the court that he is not currently registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. However, he mentioned that he has applied for the transfer of his membership from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.
However, Kumar failed to provide any evidence of his application for membership with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa but displayed his expired Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Identity Card, which was valid until December 31, 2022.
Additional Public Prosecutor AI Satpute highlighted that according to the rules, an Advocate who is not enrolled in the Bar Council of Maharashtra shall not appear or act in any Court unless he files a Vakalatnama along with an Advocate who is enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and is regularly practising in that court.
As a result, the bench directed that the order be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action.
“Conduct of simultaneously moving two different applications for bail before different benches in the same crime is indeed a very serious act, which needs to be deprecated,” the court said.
Case title: Moinoddin Golder Aminoddin Golder vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
