Why court reminded lawyer about ‘noble’ profession after he ‘lied’ about voting leave to skip SEBI trial

“There can be little doubt that the conduct of the learned advocate representing the petitioners before the learned special judge fell short of the standards expected of a member of this noble profession. Any form of misrepresentation by a member of the Bar before a Court of law is wholly unacceptable and least expected,” the May 21 order read.

Justice Kausik Chanda noted that the trial court was significantly influenced by the conduct of the advocate.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the accused persons, including two women, challenging the trial court’s refusal to exempt them from personal appearance.

‘Merit in application’

• The court directed the petitioners to pay Rs 15,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee as a token of apology for their lawyer’s conduct.
• The high court noted that the trial court failed to consider the petitioners’ application for dispensation of personal appearance and was significantly influenced by the conduct of the advocate who had appeared on their behalf.
• The court found sufficient merit in the application and held that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from personal appearance, particularly since all of them were residents of Patna and two of them were women.

Misleading explanation before trial court

• SEBI had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners under sections 24(1) and 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992.
• Section 24(1) of the Act mentions the criminal penalties for violating securities laws, while Section 27 establishes corporate liability, ensuring that the individuals responsible for the daily conduct of a company, as well as the company itself, can be prosecuted for those violations.
• Subsequently, on September 8, 2021, the special judge issued warrants of arrest after the petitioners failed to respond to the summons.
• The petitioners challenged the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court through a quashing petition.
• However, on June 18, 2025, the high court stayed further proceedings in the complaint case during the pendency of the quashing petition.

• Later, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the quashing petition by an order dated March 27, 2026.
• The petitioners then moved the special judge seeking exemption from personal appearance.
• On April 23, 2026, the lawyer for the petitioner sought an adjournment, claiming he was away casting his vote in the Assembly elections.
• The trial court, however, found that the advocate had appeared before the high court in another matter on the same day.
• Taking note of the lawyer’s conduct, the special judge rejected the application for exemption from personal appearance.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya submitted that the petitioners had decided not to engage the said lawyer any further in connection with the present case.

It was pointed out that an unconditional apology was tendered for misleading the trial court.

It was further submitted that the petitioners were willing to pay a sum of Rs 15,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee as a token of apology for the conduct of the lawyer.

Advocates Sudip Kumar Dutta and Prakash Ranjan Singh appeared on behalf of SEBI.