4 min readNew DelhiMay 26, 2026 01:46 PM ISTThe court directed the petitioners to pay Rs 15,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee as a token of apology for their advocate’s conduct. (AI-generated image)A lawyer has drawn flak from the Calcutta High Court for reportedly seeking an adjournment in a SEBI case by claiming that he had gone to cast his vote in the Assembly election, but was later found to have appeared in court for a different matter.Granting relief to the accused persons in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) case, Justice Kausik Chanda noted that the advocate had informed the special judge that he was unable to attend court on the said day. However, the trial court found that the same lawyer had appeared before the high court on the very same day.“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.Also Read | One counsel not ready to argue, other not properly instructed: Supreme Court steps in after litigant fined Rs 10,000‘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 courtSEBI 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.Also Read | ‘Thrown to wolves’: Supreme Court upholds life term of man for killing his wife for dowryLater, 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.ArgumentsAppearing 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.Also Read | Husband in Germany, wife locks up elderly in-laws’ property: High court evicts her to restore rental incomeIt 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.Story continues below this adAdvocates Sudip Kumar Dutta and Prakash Ranjan Singh appeared on behalf of SEBI.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdAdvertisementLoading Recommendations...Advertisement