The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) dismissing a revision petition filed by a litigant against Advocates Alok Dhir and Maneesha Dhir, partners of Dhir & Dhir Associates. The petition alleged professional misconduct, prompting the apex court to direct the BCI to reconsider the case.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed that the BCI dismissed the revision petition without providing any reasons for its decision. The court emphasized that even in cases where an order affirms a previous ruling, it is essential to state the rationale behind such a decision.
"The 'what', i.e., the conclusion, must have the 'why', i.e., the reasons (at least in brief), to stand on, which is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of affirmation," the bench stated.
On this ground, the Supreme Court set aside the BCI's revisional order and directed it to reconsider the petition in accordance with the law. The BCI must now hear all parties involved and pass a fresh order within six months.
Read Also:- Advocates-On-Record: The Backbone of Justice - Insights from Justice Surya Kant at Felicitation Event
The complaint was filed by Sailesh Bhansali, who had engaged Dhir & Dhir Associates to handle a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) matter related to his company, Madras Petrochem. Bhansali alleged that the law firm had a conflict of interest since it also operated an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) named Dhir & Dhir ARC.
According to the complainant, the law firm’s involvement with the ARC allowed them access to confidential financial information about Madras Petrochem. This, he claimed, created a situation where Dhir & Dhir ARC acquired the company's loans and subsequently became its largest lender. He further alleged that he was misled into signing a "no-objection" letter for their legal representation without being fully informed about the firm's connection with the ARC.
The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) initially dismissed Bhansali’s complaint on the grounds that he had provided a "no-objection" letter, which suggested his consent to the firm's representation. Bhansali then approached the BCI with a revision petition, which was again dismissed without recorded reasons.
The Supreme Court criticized the BCI for failing to justify its decision, stating:
"Law is well settled that an order of affirmation may not require elaborate reasons as required in the case of an order of reversal, but it does not mean that such an order need not contain any reason at all."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Hints at CBI Probe into Builder-Bank Nexus Exploiting NCR Homebuyers
The Supreme Court's ruling mandates that the BCI reconsider the revision petition and issue a fresh order after due process, including hearing all involved parties. The court clarified that it had not made any judgment on the merits of the case but only on the procedural lapses.
"We clarify, no opinion is expressed on merits and all points are left open for being agitated by the parties before the BCI."
The petitioner, Sailesh Bhansali, was represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, along with advocates Aditya N. Mehta and A. Karthik.
The respondents, including Alok Dhir and others, were represented by senior advocate Gourab Banerji, along with advocates Ashu Kansal, Dipanshu Krishnan, and Karan Batura.
Case : Sailesh Bhansali vs Alok Dhir and others | CIVIL APPEAL Diary No. 36274/2024
