Lawyer has license from Bar Council of India, no need for action by state bar council against him: Bombay HC

MUMBAI: Justice MS Karnik of Bombay High Court noting that a second bail plea was filed in a matter on a bona fide mistake and miscommunication , when the first was pending, allowed its withdrawal after accepting the lawyer’s explanation on March 15. Justice Karnik also said no action was necessary by the Maharashtra State Bar Council against a lawyer A Kumar registered with the UP State Bar Council as directed earlier by Justice Prithviraj Chavan, noting he had a certificate to practice law, issued by Bar Council of India and satisfied with explanation presented.
Justice Karnik said the explanation and apology tendered by advocate Abdul Karim Pathan was genuine and needs to be accepted for the second bail plea. The advocate said the accused Moinoddin Golder arrested in Jan 2021 in a cheating case is from West Bengal and his family came to Mumbai, engage him to file a bail plea in August 2022 not knowing then that a similar plea was already filed from jail by Golder through another advocate in Feb 2022.
In November 2022 Justice Karnik had granted bail to the Golder in the first bail plea. The second plea came up for hearing on March 13 before Justice Prithviraj Chavan who “deprecated” the filing of two bail applications for same crime and sent the matter to Justice Karnik.
Pathan informed Justice Karnik that on March 13 he was unwell and hence had
requested Adv A Kumar to appear on his behalf, however, Justice Chavan asked for his Bar council ID, which was found to have expired in 2022 and due for renewal. Pathan said he was unaware of the ID expiry. Justice Chavan however passed an order asking the State Bar Council to initiate action against Kumar for alleged breach of a notification cited by assistant public prosecutor A I Satpute that lawyers registered in other State Bar councils are required to appear with ones registered in Maharashtra.
Pathan informed Justice Karnik that Kumar’s license to practice law exists and is “not suspended” . He also
submitted that due to medical and family exigencies Kumar was unable to go to UP to renew his I-Card. Justice Karnik said the explanation appears to be bonafide and hence held that, “the matter need not be precipitated any further”.
The counsel for the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa also submitted that it is not within their jurisdiction to take any action against a lawyer not registered with it.
“In any case the Certificate of Practice issued by the Bar Council of India subsists, which could not be produced before the co- ordinate bench, hence any further action —by the Bar council —is now not necessary,” Justice Karnik added and disposed of the matter after an advocate on behalf of Advocate Kumar also tendered an unconditional apology.