MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has called for action from the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa against a lawyer, observing a breach of conditions governing advocates not registered in the state. Justice Prithviraj Chavan passed the order on Wednesday during a bail hearing.
The state informed the court that Moinoddin Golder, the applicant seeking liberty, had already been granted bail in November 2022 in a January 2021 case involving an alleged ‘placement service’ cheating scam in Malad. Justice M S Karnik had granted bail to Golder, noting his role as an ’employee’ without evidence of money transactions. Golder’s second bail plea, filed in August 2022 through Mumbai advocate A Karim Pathan, came up before Justice Chavan on Wednesday.
Pathan was not present, and another advocate, A Kumar, appeared and sought an adjournment on his behalf, which the court rejected. Upon the court’s inquiry, he informed that he was not registered with the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council but had already applied for membership transfer from the UP State Bar Council.
The high court stated that no evidence of the transfer request was provided, and his UP bar council ID had expired. The assistant public prosecutor, A I Satpute, highlighted a notification barring non-enrolled advocates from appearing in court without a registered Maharashtra advocate.
Justice Chavan noted the absence of Kumar’s signature on the vakalatnama, describing it as a “breach” of the condition, and forwarded the matter to the Maharashtra Bar Council Chairperson for action. The court also criticized the “simultaneous” filing of two bail pleas for the same crime, labeling it “a serious act” and observing that since bail was already granted to Golder, the registry should place the case and order before Justice Karnik.”
The state informed the court that Moinoddin Golder, the applicant seeking liberty, had already been granted bail in November 2022 in a January 2021 case involving an alleged ‘placement service’ cheating scam in Malad. Justice M S Karnik had granted bail to Golder, noting his role as an ’employee’ without evidence of money transactions. Golder’s second bail plea, filed in August 2022 through Mumbai advocate A Karim Pathan, came up before Justice Chavan on Wednesday.
Pathan was not present, and another advocate, A Kumar, appeared and sought an adjournment on his behalf, which the court rejected. Upon the court’s inquiry, he informed that he was not registered with the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council but had already applied for membership transfer from the UP State Bar Council.
The high court stated that no evidence of the transfer request was provided, and his UP bar council ID had expired. The assistant public prosecutor, A I Satpute, highlighted a notification barring non-enrolled advocates from appearing in court without a registered Maharashtra advocate.
Justice Chavan noted the absence of Kumar’s signature on the vakalatnama, describing it as a “breach” of the condition, and forwarded the matter to the Maharashtra Bar Council Chairperson for action. The court also criticized the “simultaneous” filing of two bail pleas for the same crime, labeling it “a serious act” and observing that since bail was already granted to Golder, the registry should place the case and order before Justice Karnik.”
