Reinforcing rule-based adjudication in proceedings
bharat khatwani 
(Querist) 21 June 2025
This query is : Open
[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
