Anonymous
27 July 2025 at 08:15
I have filed a formal complaint before the State Bar Council against an advocate for the following acts of professional misconduct:
Issuing a legal notice containing false and extortionary claims without any legal foundation.
Making demands in the notice that were unsupported by evidence or any reference to appropriate provisions of law.
Abusing the legal process to harass and intimidate me, in clear violation of Rules 4 and 5 of the Bar Council of India’s Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.
⚠️ Respondent’s Defense
In response, the advocate has submitted a reply that suffers from the following major deficiencies:
No supporting documents were attached.
No documentary evidence has been filed to rebut my factual claims.
No reference or justification has been made under any provision of the BCI Rules.
Several serious allegations (especially those concerning illegal motives, intent to misuse legal process, etc.) were left unaddressed, indicating selective silence.
The Bar Council has now asked me to submit a rejoinder in five copies, indicating that the case has been referred to the Disciplinary Committee (DC).
📌 My Rejoinder Highlights
In my final rejoinder, I have emphasized the following:
As per Rule 8(1), Chapter I, Part VII of the BCI Rules, the Disciplinary Committee is expected to decide matters on the basis of affidavits and documents. The Respondent has submitted neither.
Since the Respondent has submitted no evidence or counter-materials, no factual dispute remains that would require further clarification. The record stands uncontested.
The Respondent has made no effort to justify his conduct under the BCI Rules, rendering the defense legally hollow.
A prima facie case has already been established by me, thereby shifting the burden onto the Respondent—which he has failed to discharge.
❓ Request for Your Opinion:
Based on the above, I would like your professional view on the following:
Can a reply without documents, without legal citations, and with selective silence on serious allegations be treated as inadequate or non-existent in the eyes of the Bar Council?
Should the Disciplinary Committee treat the case as undefended in substance, and proceed to pass a reasoned order based solely on the complainant’s unrebutted submissions?
Sincerely,Your insights will help me assess whether I am interpreting the Bar Council Rules and the Respondent’s conduct correctly. I am also willing to pay for citations to support the above reasoning, if necessary.
bharat khatwani
21 June 2025 at 12:12
[11:00 am, 21/6/2025] Bharat Khatwani: I had lodged complaint against advocate in bar council for sending legal notice without verification of legal merit so I had lodged complaint against advocate. As reply of advocate was not satisfactory,bar council has decided to institute inquiry and has asked me to send rejoinder in 5 copies.Please do fact check and make following draft legally valid.
[11:02 am, 21/6/2025] Bharat Khatwani: BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF ***
*** (Complainant)
v.
Advocate *** (Respondent)
Date: June 19, 2025
AMENDED REJOINDER TO ADVOCATE’S REPLY DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2024
I, **, aged * years, residing at ***, solemnly affirm that I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case. All statements herein are based on my direct personal knowledge, corroborated by documentary evidence, and derived from communications made under my authority. No material facts have been concealed, and the contents are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Respected Sir/Madam,
I hereby submit this amended rejoinder in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Bar Council. The Respondent’s reply is manifestly evasive, factually insufficient, and lacks any certified documentary evidence, relevant provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules, or other statutory authority to substantiate his claims. Notably, the reply fails to address the core allegations and supporting enclosures of my complaint and does not provide point-wise rebuttals as mandated in disciplinary proceedings. Such omissions impede a fair, transparent, and effective adjudication of professional misconduct.
In accordance with the standards prescribed under Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules and Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to respond substantively and truthfully to all allegations and to substantiate his defense with verifiable, contemporaneous evidence.
To facilitate a just and expeditious resolution of this matter, I respectfully request that the Hon’ble Disciplinary Committee direct the Respondent to produce all documents upon which he intends to rely. These documents should be duly notarized or certified and contemporaneous with the events in question. Such a direction will enable the Committee to concentrate on the substantive merits of the case, eliminate irrelevant or extraneous issues, and prevent unnecessary disputes over facts that can be readily verified from official records.
I trust that the Committee will take appropriate measures to ensure that these proceedings are conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the highest standards of professional ethics.
I. FAILURE TO UPHOLD PROFESSIONAL DUTIES
1A. Reliance on Client Instructions – Dereliction of Professional Obligation
The Respondent claims he drafted the legal notice dated September 25, 2023 (Enclosure 3), purely based on client instructions. This defense is untenable. An advocate is not a mere stenographer; client instructions do not absolve them of their fundamental professional obligation to exercise independent judgment and verify the factual and legal soundness of claims. Issuing a legal notice, especially one containing exorbitant and unfounded demands, without diligent fact-checking constitutes a serious dereliction of duty and directly violates the standard of due diligence explicitly required under Rule 4 of Part VI, Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules. Such conduct undermines the very integrity of the legal profession.
1B. Unverified, Exorbitant, and Unlawful Demands
The Respondent’s notice (Enclosure 3) was demonstrably wrongly addressed to my deceased mother, Smt. *** (passed away on October 10, 2023, per Enclosure 1). The notice demands a staggering and arbitrary sum of 150 years’ rent—120 years at ₹300/month based on an alleged 24-year-old oral agreement, and 30 years of rent for unauthorized repairs—without legal basis or supporting documents. These demands are contradicted by the Tenant’s Letter dated August 4, 2011 (Enclosure 6), and the Correspondence Reaffirming Ownership dated November 30, 2023 (Enclosure 7). This violates Rule 5 of the Bar Council Rules which bars misleading and improper conduct.
1C. “No-Visit” Claim – Blatant Abdication of Duty
The Respondent admitted he did not inspect the premises or verify any repair costs. This abdication of duty violates the advocate’s professional obligation to verify facts (Rules 4 and 13). By blindly parroting unverified client claims, he reduces himself to a mere agent, breaching both the letter and spirit of the Bar Council Rules.
II. FALLACY 1: ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTIVE INTENT – A Malicious Diversion
The Respondent alleged that this complaint was filed to obstruct his representation of the tenant. This is demonstrably false. At the time of the complaint, no litigation was pending where the Respondent represented any party against me or my late mother.
This complaint is strictly limited to the issue of professional misconduct—i.e., the issuance of a patently false and coercive legal notice. Diverting attention to alleged motives violates Rule 5 and attempts to shield misconduct by attacking the complainant, in violation of natural justice.
III. FALLACY 2: DISPUTED STANDING – A Baseless Tactical Diversion
The Respondent argues the notice was not addressed to me, hence I cannot complain. This is false. The Tenant’s Letter dated August 4, 2011 (Enclosure 6) acknowledges me as owner. My reply (Enclosure 4) was sent in that capacity, and supported by land records (Enclosure 2). Section 35 of the Advocates Act allows complaints from any person. Thus, the objection is legally frivolous and ethically revealing—it deflects scrutiny rather than addressing misconduct.
IV. FALLACY 3: FALSE AUTHORSHIP & MISREPRESENTATION – Deliberate Deception
The Respondent falsely claimed that my reply was authored by my late mother. This is a blatant misrepresentation: she passed away on October 10, 2023 (Enclosure 1), and my reply to his notice was written and signed by me alone. He also mischaracterized the content of my reply, ignoring its clear denials of:
Ownership claim by tenant
Alleged bank rent deposits
Alleged oral rent agreement and liability for repairs
Such misrepresentations are unethical and violate Rules 4 and 5.
V. FALLACY 4: UNSUBSTANTIATED & CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS – Pattern of Fabrication
The Respondent's reply includes:
Alleged rent deposits—no proof provided
Exorbitant demands—no breakdown or proof
Oral agreement—no past reference or record
Coercive threats—issued without legal basis
No follow-up litigation—indicating intent to intimidate, not litigate
These contradictions confirm a pattern of fabrication, not good faith legal representation.
VI. ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS – Systematic Derailment of Inquiry
The Respondent has repeatedly:
Distorted facts
Maligned my motives
Raised frivolous objections
Dodged direct evidence
Such tactics sabotage legitimate disciplinary inquiry and should not be condoned.
VII. CALL FOR DOCUMENTARY INQUIRY & PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE
The Hon’ble Committee is requested to direct the Respondent to produce within 7 days:
Legal Notice dated September 25, 2023
Proof of service to Smt. ***
Instructions or affidavit by tenant Shri ***
Bank statements showing rent deposits
Cheque/counterfoil of ₹3,600
Receipts or rent records
Evidence of the alleged 24-year agreement
VIII. PRAYER
I respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Bar Council of *** may:
Direct the Respondent to produce the above documents
Proceed based on documentary evidence
Hold the Respondent guilty of misconduct
Impose suitable penalties
Award costs of ₹10,000 for distress caused
Pass such other reliefs in the interest of justice
Yours faithfully,
Ph: ***
Email: ***
Date: June 19, 2025
bharat khatwani
27 May 2025 at 19:47
I need your help.....Pl. Check for legal accuracy and relevance,Confirm citations and applicability,....Rule 4 of BCI Rules (Part VI, Chapter II) – to argue that Khemnani acted only as a “mouthpiece,” ignoring his duty to verify facts and restrain language.
Section 35 of Advocates Act – to seek formal disciplinary action.
R.K. Anand (SC) and Saumya Chaurasia (SC) – to show the Court expects independent verification by counsel.
Selvamurugan (Madras HC) – for sending legal notices with falsehoods.
Law Commission 266th Report – to show that this kind of misconduct is part of a larger systemic concern.
bharat khatwani
06 October 2024 at 19:54
WHAT ARE CHALLENGES OF FILING CASE UNDER SECTION 211 OF IPC?
Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/modify_message.asp?entry_id=936115Pl. check out legal opinion on baseless Legal notice and law and opine.
Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/ask_query.aspa baseless legal notice itself, while not necessarily leading to a court case, can also be considered a misuse of the legal process if it’s meant to intimidate or harass the recipient.
When it comes to baseless legal notices, while there might not be specific case law focusing purely on legal notices as standalone documents, the broader principles of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and frivolous claims can apply if a notice is sent with no legal basis. These notices often serve as a precursor to a potential lawsuit, and the intent behind them can bring them within the purview of judicial scrutiny.
Here are some concepts and case laws that touch on baseless claims or notices and their misuse:
1. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd. (2008) 6 SCC 431
Summary: In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the issue of abusive legal strategies, particularly involving frivolous claims and intimidation tactics through legal notices.
Ruling: The court condemned the use of legal notices that were primarily aimed at harassing the other party and making unreasonable demands without legal backing.
Significance: The ruling made it clear that even the issuance of baseless legal notices can lead to misuse of legal process charges if it can be proven that the intent was to harass or intimidate.
2. CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633
Summary: In this case, the court examined the misuse of judicial or quasi-judicial powers through issuing notices that had no legal basis, discussing the potential abuse of process through administrative or legal notices.
Ruling: The court emphasized that notices issued without legal basis and with a malicious intent can be penalized. While this was a tax-related case, the principles apply broadly to the issuance of baseless legal notices.
Significance: This case establishes that even the issuance of a notice must be rooted in proper legal authority, and failure to do so could lead to sanctions or penalties.
3. Amritlal Goverdhan Lalan v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 613
Summary: This case addressed harassment through legal notices in a property dispute where baseless and false claims were made in the legal notice to coerce the opposite party.
Ruling: The court criticized the practice of sending notices that have no factual or legal basis as a malicious tactic designed to pressure the other party into submission.
Significance: It serves as an example of the court condemning the practice of using legal notices as tools for harassment when they are not backed by legitimate claims.
4. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 1 SCC 258
Summary: Although this case primarily dealt with commercial matters, the court discussed how legal notices with no proper legal foundation are often used as a strategic tool for harassment.
Ruling: The court pointed out that legal notices that serve no legitimate purpose and are not grounded in law can be considered an abuse of legal procedures, even if they don’t lead to immediate litigation.
Significance: This ruling shows that abusive or baseless notices can be sanctioned by the courts as a misuse of process.
5. Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty (2018) 16 SCC 228
Summary: The case dealt with harassment and frivolous demands made through notices, which were used to intimidate the recipient.
Ruling: The court strongly condemned the use of frivolous demands through legal notices and noted that such tactics could amount to an abuse of the legal system.
Significance: This case reaffirms that even if a case doesn’t make it to court, the misuse of legal notices can still be penalized.
6. Satish Kumar & Others v. Surinder Kumar & Others (2006) 2 SCC 367
Summary: The court addressed a situation where one party used a legal notice to make inflated and false claims regarding property ownership, attempting to coerce the other party into a settlement.
Ruling: The court dismissed the subsequent case based on these false claims and imposed costs on the party that sent the baseless legal notice and pursued the false claims.
Significance: This judgment underlines that sending a baseless legal notice with the intent to mislead or extract unreasonable demands can backfire if the notice escalates into a court case.
IPC Section 211:
If the baseless legal notice eventually leads to false criminal charges being filed against the recipient, the sender could potentially be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for false charges with intent to cause injury. This section penalizes individuals who institute criminal proceedings based on false information.
Conclusion:
While there may not be a significant number of reported cases solely dealing with baseless legal notices, courts have repeatedly emphasized that using legal notices to harass, intimidate, or extract unreasonable sums is unacceptable and can be treated as an abuse of legal process. If these notices lead to malicious litigation or unjustified demands, the parties responsible could face penalties, punitive costs, and even criminal prosecution under certain circumstances. WHAT ARE CHALLENGES OF FILING CASE UNDER SECTION 211 OF IPC?
Anonymous
21 June 2024 at 09:42
Subject: Urgent Action Needed to Address Frivolous Lawsuits and Unethical Practices
Dear Members of the Bar Council,
The erosion of public trust in the legal system poses a serious threat to our democracy. A significant factor contributing to this erosion is the apparent disregard for the ethical guidelines that are already in place.
The Problem: Including Baseless Claims in Legal Notices Mechanically
To investigate the root of this issue, I conducted an experiment on a legal forum (Pathlegal). In my first experiment, I asked if an advocate would draft a legal notice for a bank robber's accomplice claiming an unfair share of stolen money. Except for one advocate, the others did not express reservations about proceeding. This response made me think that perhaps the rules were not clear enough.
In response, I searched for the Bar Council's guidelines and found that they clearly define an advocate's duty towards opposing parties. To test their effectiveness, I copied and pasted these guidelines onto Pathlegal and posed a similar ethical question. Disturbingly, even after reading the clear-cut guidelines, one advocate responded by stating, "The Advocates' Code outlines the responsibilities and duties of an advocate. An advocate must maintain honesty towards their own client and remain neutral towards the opposing party" This response enlightened the root cause of the problem: the issue is not the clarity of the guidelines, but the failure of some advocates to adhere to and internalize these ethical standards.
Personal Experience and Systemic Flaws
Recently, I encountered a troubling situation firsthand. My tenant claimed INR 400,000 for renovations after 24 years based solely on an alleged oral agreement with my father in 1999. This claim lacks any supporting documentation and contradicts the Statute of Limitations, which prescribes a three-year limit for oral agreements. Additionally, the timing of the claim and continued rent payments further undermine its credibility. Unfortunately, such baseless claims are becoming increasingly common.
Ethical Concerns and Recommendations
This case study underscores the need for not just clear guidelines, but also effective enforcement and education. To address these shortcomings and restore public trust, I urge the Bar Council to take the following actions:
Review and Reinforce Existing Rules:
Reaffirm the clarity of the current guidelines and ensure they are widely disseminated and understood among advocates.
Develop a campaign to educate advocates about the importance of adhering to these guidelines, emphasizing the ethical duties they owe to all parties.
Enforce Disciplinary Measures:
Implement stricter disciplinary measures with clear consequences for violations, including warnings, suspensions, and potential disbarment for repeated offenses involving baseless claims.
Enhance the capacity of disciplinary committees to investigate and act on complaints of unethical behavior promptly and transparently.
Promote Ethical Advocacy:
Strengthen ethical guidelines to more clearly define an advocate's duty to prevent frivolous lawsuits and uphold factual merit in legal proceedings.
Implement mandatory continuing education programs emphasizing ethical conduct and professional responsibility, including regular workshops and seminars.
By taking these proactive steps, the Bar Council can send a clear message about the importance of ethical advocacy. This will not only deter unethical practices but also significantly reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits clogging the court system. Ultimately, this will lead to a more efficient and just legal system for all.
I HAVE UPLOADEDABOVE PETITION AT https://chng.it/g8T7vPVCbn PLEASE SUPPORT THIS PETITION TO ESTABLISH RULE OF LAW.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Regular matters
Over ten years have passed a future date has not been given yet pertaining to a Regular matter (WPC) case at the Delhi High Court.
Query how long do courts take to get a date in Regular matters.