The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, with Justices Anil L Pansare and Nivedita P Mehta, strongly criticised Advocate SD Chande, observing that he had allegedly misled the court, and promptly referred him to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct.

Illegal Structures Issue:

This happened during hearings of a petition filed by Pushpa Gupta. She asked for the removal of illegal structures, including meat and chicken shops, built on government land and on a plot that had been leased to her but which she has not yet received possession of.

Forgery Allegation:

Gupta claimed that the respondents were relying on a civil court order to support their case, even though that order had actually gone against them. She also suggested that the document might have been forged or manipulated.

The judges expressed alarm that Advocate Chande had submitted a vakalatnama for only one respondent, but was representing seven people in total.

Court Finds Fraud:

They said, “Based on his submissions, we have passed two orders. We held that these respondents have played fraud upon the Court by relying upon a forged document. Accordingly, we have issued contempt notice against these respondents,” the court stated in its April 9 order.

The Bench said this was a serious issue and warned that if the document is proven to be forged, it would be a grave fraud and could lead to contempt action.

Misconduct Finding:

The Court also said, “It appears that Chande has misled the Court and the parties. The mischief played by Chande amounts to misconduct. We accordingly refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for taking suitable action against S D Chande, Advocate.”

The court also urged the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to look into Advocate SD Chande’s past record of similar complaints.

Encroachments to Be Cleared:

At the same time, the Nagpur Improvement Trust told the Court that it will remove the encroachments from Pushpa Gupta’s leased plot within six weeks.

Case Details: Pushpa Sanjay Gupta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors