Lawyer Suspended For Two Years Over Fake Rs 80,000 Court Fee Charged From Client

News18

3 days ago

Last Updated:
The three-member disciplinary committee also directed the advocate to pay Rs 25,000 as costs to the complainant within a month of receiving the order.
In a disciplinary action against professional misconduct, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) has suspended advocate Ranjeeta Vengurlekar from practising law for two years after finding her guilty of duping a client by charging a fictitious court fee of Rs 80,000.
The three-member disciplinary committee — comprising Chairman Dr Uday Warunjikar and members Sangram Desai and Aniruddha Garge — also directed the advocate to pay Rs 25,000 as costs to the complainant within a month of receiving the order.
The complaint was filed by Abhijeet Jagannath Zadokar, who alleged that Vengurlekar had taken Rs 80,000 from him under the pretext of paying court fees, but handed over a fraudulent receipt. He claimed that over time, he paid a total of Rs 1.5 lakh for legal services, and ultimately suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs 21 lakh due to the mishandling of his legal matter.
The advocate denied all allegations, claiming that the money was partly her professional fee, and that the complainant had merely sought legal consultation from her office in Badlapur. She also denied any responsibility for the alleged financial losses suffered by the complainant.
However, during the inquiry, the complainant stepped into the witness box and submitted detailed evidence, including WhatsApp exchanges and a Section 65B certificate authenticating the electronic records. The committee found that despite being served through post and even personally via messenger, neither Vengurlekar nor her lawyer appeared for the hearings after filing a brief written reply.
The committee noted that the evidence submitted by the complainant had remained unchallenged throughout the proceedings, as the respondent failed to cross-examine or counter the claims.
'Bare perusal of the record goes to show that the complainant has proved his case about misconduct," the committee observed, holding that the receipt allegedly provided by the advocate for the Rs. 80,000 court fee was prima facie bogus. It added that although criminal action may also lie in such matters, the Bar Council's scope was limited to examining misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
The disciplinary body emphasized that while it was not passing any order on other prayers made by the complainant, it found sufficient grounds to impose a professional penalty.
We are of the view that it would be appropriate to pass an order of suspension for period of two years, the order concluded.
First Published: