A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court concerning a cyber fraud perpetrated by unknown persons apparently with the active connivance of employees of telecom service providers and bank employees as a result of which, the petitioner lost his entire life savings amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/-.
On 28-09-2026, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the advocate appearing for Kotak Bank (respondent 5) as he was not attentive while appearing through video conferencing and was dodging the questions put to him. The Court directed the advocate to attend the Court personally along with either the Regional Manager or General Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai. When the matter was taken up in the afternoon session, another advocate appeared under instructions of Kotak Bank’s advocate, stating that he was in personal difficulty due to which he could not attend the hearing.
The Court stated that the advocate had flouted its directions as he was not personally present and the Deputy Branch Manager was present instead of the Regional or General Manager. The Court said that it was deeply disturbed by the casual approach adopted by the advocate as well as the legal department of Kotak Mahindra Bank. Thereafter, the advocate, appearing through VC, raised specious plea that he was to attend another matter at the Aurangabad Bench because of which, he did not attend this Court.
Strongly deprecating the advocate’s practice of blatantly disregarding and flouting the Court’s order, the Court noted that he continued to give irrelevant answers. Hence, the Court referred the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for initiating necessary and strict action against the advocate. The advocate appearing on behalf of Kotak Bank’s advocate stated that he would file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his conduct.
On 30-09-2026, a request was made for the advocate’s conduct to be pardoned. However, the Court refused to accept the request and stated that in recent times, there has been a rising trend amongst advocate to willfully disregard or blatantly disobey Court orders or to mislead Courts, thereby undermining the authority of a Court. The Court found that advocates carry a perception that they could willfully disobey the Court and get away with it by offering an excuse or by tendering an unconditional apology either themselves or through a senior counsel if caught and faced with the ire of the Court.
It was stated that the Court’s leniency had emboldened the advocates to treat court orders casually and that it was high time that was stopped as the Court noted that advocates, their clients, officers of government institutions, and even public at large take orders lightly. The Court stated that it was imperative to prevent the Court’s authority being trampled by unscrupulous litigants and advocates who have scant respect for Court proceedings.
Thus, the Court placed the onus and responsibility on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to help weed out such advocates by taking stern actions against them to send out a strong message to its members and to uphold the Court’s dignity.
ALSO READ: Woman Can Be Charged with Gang Rape Under IPC and BNS; Delhi High Court Upholds Charges
