The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate an inquiry into the professional conduct of Advocate Vijay Kurle, who allegedly attempted to delay the pronouncement of an order in a long-pending eviction dispute.

The Court observed that the matter had already been fully argued and was listed solely for the delivery of the verdict.

Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the single-judge bench, noted that Kurle’s conduct amounted to prima facie professional misconduct. “The above conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate, is totally unacceptable and prima facie is a misconduct,” the Court remarked.

The case — Ballam Trifla Singh v Gyan Prakash Shukla — concerns a commercial property in Jogeshwari, Mumbai, measuring 990 sq ft. The dispute dates back to a 1996 eviction suit, where the landlord alleged the premises had been sublet without consent to the father of Kurle’s client, Ballam Trifla Singh.

An eviction order was eventually passed in 2016. Subsequently, Singh claimed ownership of the property via a 1990 sale deed. However, both the trial court and the appellate court found the document to be fabricated. Following these setbacks, Singh approached the High Court through a revision application, which was fully argued on April 4, 2025.

During the hearing, the Court indicated it would dismiss the case with exemplary costs. Singh’s then-counsel sought time to consider withdrawing the application. However, on April 8, Singh declined to withdraw, and the matter was listed for order on April 9.

On the day scheduled for pronouncement, Advocate Vijay Kurle appeared for the first time, claiming to have received instructions to take over the case. He requested an adjournment to file his vakalatnama and reargue the matter. The Court, however, noted that the arguments had already concluded and rejected the request.

Justice Jamdar observed that Kurle was fully aware of the case status and had appeared solely to obstruct the proceedings. The Court held that Kurle had acted as a mouthpiece of the litigant rather than as an officer of the court. “Instead of discouraging the applicant from employing sharp and unfair practices, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate, aligned himself with such attempts,” the Court noted.

Consequently, the Court directed the Bar Council to conduct a formal inquiry into Kurle’s conduct. While making clear that these were preliminary observations, the Court emphasized that the Bar Council would be the final authority to determine whether professional misconduct had occurred.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat, instructed by Advocate Pratibha Shelke, earlier represented the applicant, Ballam Singh.

Advocates Vijay Kurle and Bhagyesha Kurane later appeared for Singh. Advocate Anand A. Pande appeared for the respondent, Gyan Prakash Shukla, while Additional Public Prosecutor R.S. Tendulkar represented the State.