Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently directed the Bar Council of India to conduct an inquiry into the proceedings where an allegedly false settlement agreement was prepared by certain advocates to arrive at a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent, where the latter claims to have never engaged an advocate to represent his case.

In a peculiar case before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar, the Court had to examine whether to recall its December 13, 2024, order whereby it disposed of a special leave petition after the Court was informed by the parties that they had arrived at a settlement in a matter relating to a property dispute.

However, soon a miscellaneous application was filed by respondent Harish Jaiswal claiming that he had never engaged any lawyer to settled the matter with the appellant.

He said that he had accidentally come across the December order, and to his utter shock, the order of the High Court was set aside in that judgment. He therefore filed an application to recall the settlement. The Court recorded his stand as follows :

"That when the Applicant approached his Advocate-on-Record for legal advice concerning the said order dated 13.12.2024, while perusing the official website of the Supreme Court of India, it was found that a caveat had been filed in the said matter on behalf of the Applicant. This shocking revelation has laid bare a meticulously crafted conspiracy against the Applicant, wherein certain individuals at the behest of the Petitioner, fraudulently entered appearance and ensured that no notice was ever served upon the Applicant. This was done with the sole objective of securing an order in favour of the Petitioner, thereby depriving the Applicant of the opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

That the Respondent/Applicant had no prior knowledge of any further legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner and was not informed of any additional actions taken in this regard. The case before this Hon'ble court was instituted fraudulently by placing on record a settlement agreement with the forged and fabricated signature of Applicant thereby committing an act of misrepresentation and deception with the intent to mislead this Hon'ble Court and obtain favourable order by playing fraud upon the Court."

As per the order, four advocates, Senior Advocate Muneshwar Shaw, Advocate Rattan Lal, Advocate on Record J.M. Khanna and Advocate Shefali Sethi Khanna had appeared.

On May 13, the Court was informed on behalf of AoR Khanna, that he had already left practice and was never engaged in the matter. Shefali Sethi also informed the Court that she was not associated with this matter.

The Court subsequently ordered a preliminary inquiry to inquire into how and at whose instance it was made to appear as if the Respondent counsels were engaged for the so-called settlement. It said that on the basis of the report, action, including direction for lodging of FIR, will be taken.

On August 5, the Court requested r Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association, to assist it in this matter along with Advocates Nikhil Jain and Advocate Amit Sharma.

"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having elicited the views of Mr. Vipin Nair, we are of the opinion that the facts leading to the disposal of the Special Leave Petition in terms of the alleged settlement agreement requires to be examined in detail. The role of advocates involved in preparation of the settlement agreement, its filing and conduct of the proceedings also need to be enquired into. We have refrained from drawing any conclusions for the present. In view of the above, we direct the Bar Council of India to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter and submit a report to this court by the end of October 2025."

The dispute arose over a purported agreement to sell (Mahadnama) dated 26.12.1986, under which the Petitioner (Plaintiff), Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh, claimed that the Respondent (Defendant), Harish Jaiswal, had agreed to sell him a property for a total consideration of Rs. 63,000.

The Petitioner asserted that an advance payment of Rs. 18,000 was made at the time of execution, and the remaining amount was paid in three annual instalments of Rs. 15,000 each, with the final payment allegedly completed by December 1989. The Petitioner contended that despite the full consideration being paid, the Applicant refused to execute the sale deed, forcing him to initiate legal proceedings for specific performance of the contract.

However, all three Courts concluded that the petitioner fabricated the payment and other document and the agreement was never concluded.

Case Details: BIPIN BIHARI SINHA @ BIPIN PRASAD SINGH v. HARISH JAISWAL|MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 7144/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Click Here To Read Order