Bombay High Court seeks stern action against advocate for defying court orders

The Bombay High Court refused to remove adverse remarks against advocate Mandar Lalsare and sought disciplinary action. The bench said repeated judicial leniency had encouraged lawyers to disregard court directives.

In Short

• Cyber fraud victim Dhiren Roy lost his entire Rs 1.4 crore savings
• The lawyer gave evasive answers while representing Kotak Bank through video conference
• Judges ordered his personal appearance alongside a senior bank official

The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take stern disciplinary action against an advocate who repeatedly flouted judicial directives during a cyber fraud hearing, observing that judicial leniency has inadvertently encouraged defiance among lawyers.

A bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata categorically refused to expunge adverse remarks recorded against advocate Mandar Lalsare, noting a troubling pattern of lawyers blatantly disregarding court orders and relying on apologies to escape accountability.

The controversy arose on September 28 during the hearing of a plea filed by cyber fraud victim Dhiren Roy, who lost his entire life savings of Rs 1.4 crore. Lalsare, representing Kotak Bank via video conference, gave evasive answers to the court's queries. Dissatisfied with his conduct, the judges specifically directed him to appear in person during the afternoon session, accompanied by a senior bank official.

Instead of complying, Lalsare sent a newly enrolled proxy counsel and a deputy branch manager, citing an engagement before the Aurangabad Bench. The bench rejected the excuse as unacceptable. While the junior advocate was pardoned after tendering an unconditional written apology, the judges reserved the right to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Lalsare under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

During a subsequent hearing on September 30, Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni urged the bench to pardon Lalsare and expunge the adverse remarks. The court firmly rejected the plea.

"Courts have, until now, time and again been large-hearted and forgiven such acts. Such leniency over the years has emboldened the said advocates to treat the orders of the court casually, wholly undermining its authority," the bench observed.

Emphasising the need to prevent unscrupulous litigants and advocates from undermining the authority of courts, the bench directed the Bar Council to take action to weed out errant advocates.

- Ends