Scribd
Upload
3 views4 pages

written argument(Bar Council Matter)

The respondent, Mr. Ahad Abdul Majeed Adhikari, argues against a complaint filed by Mrs. Nahida Habib Khot for the cancellation of his Bar Council membership, claiming that the allegations are baseless and stem from personal conflicts. He asserts that he has never had a professional relationship with the complainant and has been targeted due to his advocacy for underprivileged individuals in the community. The respondent requests the dismissal of the complaint, emphasizing that the matter is still sub judice and he has not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Uploaded by

xv2yvv4fjf
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views4 pages

written argument(Bar Council Matter)

The respondent, Mr. Ahad Abdul Majeed Adhikari, argues against a complaint filed by Mrs. Nahida Habib Khot for the cancellation of his Bar Council membership, claiming that the allegations are baseless and stem from personal conflicts. He asserts that he has never had a professional relationship with the complainant and has been targeted due to his advocacy for underprivileged individuals in the community. The respondent requests the dismissal of the complaint, emphasizing that the matter is still sub judice and he has not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Uploaded by

xv2yvv4fjf
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,

BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA


P.E. NO. 207 / 2024

Mrs. Nahida Habib Khot ... Complainant


Versus
Mr. Ahad Abdul Majeed Adhikari ... Respondent

WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER ;


1. The complainant have filed the above complaint against
respondent under section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 for
cancellation of membership of Bar Council of Maharashtra
and Goa.
2. This written argument is submitted for limited
purpose of submitting my sincere professional
conduct and hurdles created by the Complainant in
doing my profession selflessly for underprivileged
part of the society.
3. That the respondent family is residing at Pen since
the time of grandfather. He is practicing in Alibag and
Pen Courts. The Complainant and her family is known
to my family. The Complainant’s husband is
engaged in the stamp vending prior to my enrolment
and law practice . The Complainant’s Husband Mr
Habib khot is also engaged in managing the mosque
in Pen town . He has always tried to influence the
minority community especially the weaker, illiterate
persons . Respondent the malpractices committed by
him and leading the community towards
misinformation and misguiding them . Respondent
being practicing Advocate started questioning him in
meetings and asked him to conduct the affairs in
judicious manner.
4. That the respondent states that since the date or
prior thereto he was enrolled as an Advocate, he do
not share an advocate-client relationship with the
Complainant or any one of her family member.
respondent have never filed any Vakalatnama in a
court of law, and neither appears, pleaded or argued
for the complainant in any court of law or any Qausi-
Judicial authority or before any authority.
5. That the respondent states and submit that he has
never taken any fees for any work from the
Complainant , nor she had engaged respondent to
represent her as an Advocate.There is no interaction
between respondent and the complainant within the
court premises or outside of court premises or while
wearing the attire prescribed by the Bar Council.

6. That the respondent states that he has been fighting


multiple cases against Mr. Habib Khot. One Mrs Nahila
Qayoom Pitthoo, sister of the Complainant had filed
FIR under Section 354 of the IPC in Pen police station
. The said Nahila then filed complaint under Sec35 of
the Advocates Act to this Council . The said complaint
was dismissed in the preliminary enquiry.
7. That the respondent states that as an Advocate
respondent also used to go to the Police Station for
helping his clients persons for filing FIR /NC ect. On
27th March 2023, one Mr .Rafiq Tadavi , who was
known to the Complainant called him and informed
me to stand near his friend’s shop which is near to
the mosque where respondent had gone for prayer.
The mosque is near to the house of the Complainant
and there is only one road for approaching the said
mosque. Respondent met said Rafique Tadvi to help
him to go to the police station . When they met each
other the Complainant started abusing the said
Rafique on the basis of his community and surname
Tadvi as one backward class, Scheduled caste person
and called upon him to go away from this city. The
complainant also address said Rafiq with all filthy
words and abuses. Respondent was also abused
respondent was helping Rafiq to get the police
complaint registered.

8. On very same day Respondent and Mr Rafiq Tadvi


approach pen Police station and submitted written
complaint for lodging FIR under SC/ST Atrocity Act,
The other person who was there to help us is
Disabled and complainant made derogatory
comments about his Physical Disability.
9. Since then the entire family was vengeful with
respondent. They are under impression that if
respondent stopped from practicing law in the
courts , they can petrify our community and there
will be none to challenge their arbitrary activities
which can be termed as offences under the Law .
Respondent is the only person from Pen, from his
community ,practicing Advocate at Pen Court.
Respondent has good relation with Advocates
practicing at High Court due to which he was able to
work for justice till High Court and people mainly with
limited means were benefited by it. respondent
Active practice and success had threatened the
Complainants family and they though they will not be
able deceive the gullible persons of his community
and could not create vicious atmosphere in the city of
Pen.
10.The respondent has filed Discharge application in FIR
146/2024 before learned JMFC Pen. The FIR filed by
the complainant is yet not put to the test of trial,
Respondent have not been convicted in any case till
date.
11.Since the matter is sub judice, and its outcome is yet
to be determined, it would be premature to arrive at
any conclusion at this stage. In light of the foregoing,
it is most respectfully submitted that the present
matter be dismissed as untenable at this juncture.”.

Hence it is Submitted that Complaint of


Complainant is being based on baseless allegations
deserved to be DISMISSED with exemplary costs, in the
interest of justice and equity.

It is therefore prayed accordingly.

Abdulahad Majeed Adhikari

Date : Respondent

You might also like