Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an intervention application filed by Samina Arif Khan alias Dhanlaxmi Chandrakant Devrukhkar, who alleged that Advocate Rohan Barge, Notary S.M. Naqvi, and an unknown person had filed Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 in her name without her consent, knowledge, or authority. Samina contended that her signature appearing after the prayer clause and under the verification clause of the writ petition was not hers, and that the filing constituted cheating, fraud, impersonation, and forgery. On 29 September 2021, a praecipe was received from her advocate seeking urgent hearing of the intervention application. On 4 October 2021, the court placed the intervention application and writ petition on board and directed Advocate Rohan Barge to remain present at 2:30 p.m.; as he was absent, he was directed to appear on 5 October 2021. On 5 October 2021, Advocate Barge appeared with a registered clerk, R.L. Agawane, and Sandeep S. Dharne. Dharne filed an affidavit, admittedly drafted by Advocate Barge, stating that he had approached Agawane in January 2020 and was introduced to Barge for filing the writ petition. Dharne claimed he held a power of attorney executed in his favour by Samina in 2005, that he had contacted Samina and obtained her confirmation to file the petition, but since Samina was hospitalised at the time of notarization, he signed the petition on her behalf without disclosing that fact to Barge or Agawane. He further alleged that Samina had filed the writ petition recording incorrect facts only because she had not paid legal fees for matters he had attended on her behalf in revenue courts, and that he had no prime role in the writ petition. When the court asked Dharne to produce the original or a copy of the power of attorney, he stated he did not have it at present. He admitted that the power of attorney authorised him to represent Samina only in revenue matters and did not grant power to file Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021. The court was examining the serious allegations of fraud and unauthorized filing, and the extracted portion of the judgment ends without a final decision. The matter involved questions of contempt, professional responsibility, and the validity of a writ petition filed under an alleged power of attorney of limited scope.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Fraudulent Filing of Writ Petition - Unauthorized institution of proceedings amounts to fraud on court and may attract contempt jurisdiction - Bombay High Court registered Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2021 against Advocate and Notary S.M. Naqvi and Sandeep Sadanand Dharne based on allegations that Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 was filed in the name of Samina without her consent, knowledge, or authority, with forged signatures - Court directed the advocate to appear and recorded the affidavit of the alleged power of attorney holder (Paras 1-3). B) Legal Profession - Advocate's Duty to Verify Client Instructions - An advocate must ensure that the person instructing him has authority and that pleadings are signed by the party or authorised agent - Allegation that Advocate Rohan Barge filed the writ petition without verifying the signature of the named petitioner led to the court directing his personal appearance and examining his conduct (Paras 2-3). C) Power of Attorney - Scope of Authority - A power of attorney granted for revenue and government purposes does not include authority to file writ petitions - Sandeep Dharne, the alleged power of attorney holder, admitted that his authority was limited to revenue matters and did not extend to filing Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 - Held that the power of attorney did not cover the filing of the writ petition (Paras 3-4). D) Notary Practice - Duties in Attestation - A notary must identify the signatory and ensure proper execution before attesting a document - The person whose signature was to be notarized was allegedly hospitalised, and another person signed without disclosing that fact, raising issues of notarial misconduct and false identification (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 was filed without the authority, consent, or knowledge of the named petitioner, and whether the conduct of the advocate, notary, and others amounted to fraud, impersonation, forgery, and contempt of court; and whether the power of attorney relied upon authorized the filing of the writ petition.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the extracted portion of the judgment; the court was examining the allegations and had directed the advocate to appear and recorded the affidavit of the alleged power of attorney holder, but no final order was included.
Law Points
- Fraud on court
- impersonation
- forgery
- unauthorized filing of writ petition
- power of attorney scope
- advocate's duty to verify authority
- notary's duty of identification
- contempt of court
- professional misconduct
