Bombay High Court Issues Notice for Prima Facie Misconduct Under Advocates Act and Contempt of Court, Following Representation Shift After Advocate Assured the Court She Would Argue the Matter the Following Day

---

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court, while hearing a writ petition, issued notices to Advocates Ms. Shreya Mohapatra and Ms. Navaz Dordi for prima facie misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and potential violations under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to gather their registration details and addresses from the Bar Council for further action. The case was adjourned to November 21, 2024, for further proceedings.

---

Facts of the Case

1. Writ Petition Background:
   • The writ petition (No. 1969 of 2024) was filed by Jairam Damji Hingu and others against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents, including MHADA.
   • On November 11, 2024, Advocate Ms. Navaz Dordi appeared for the petitioners on behalf of Advocate Ms. Shreya Mohapatra, who was initially representing the petitioners.
2. Court Inquiry:
   • The Court raised a question regarding the maintainability of a specific prayer in the petition and sought clarification from Advocate Ms. Navaz Dordi, who assured the Court that she would argue the matter the following day.
3. Representation Shift:
   • On November 12, 2024, Advocate Mr. Jamsheed Master appeared for the petitioners, instructed by Advocate Mr. Mangesh Chavan. He presented a “No Objection” from Advocate Ms. Shreya Mohapatra authorizing Advocate Mr. Mangesh Chavan to represent the petitioners.

---

Issues

• Whether the actions of Advocates Ms. Shreya Mohapatra and Ms. Navaz Dordi, in light of the shifting representation, constituted professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
• Whether their actions amounted to contempt of court by not adhering to prior directions issued by the Court.

---

Court’s Observations

1. Potential Misconduct:
   • The Court noted that the practices adopted by the concerned advocates appeared to prima facie fall under misconduct as per Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
   • Additionally, the conduct may attract provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance with court directions.
2. Directions for Compliance:
   • The Court instructed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to gather registration details and addresses of the advocates from the Bar Council.
   • It further directed the Prothonotary to serve a copy of the Court’s order to the advocates through a Special Bailiff within one week.

---

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court issued notices to the concerned advocates, seeking their explanation for the apparent professional misconduct and potential contempt. The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 21, 2024, and was ordered to be listed first on the board.

---

Implications

This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring professional ethics and adherence to procedural norms by advocates. It underscores the potential repercussions of violating the Advocates Act and the Contempt of Courts Act.