Skip to content

High Court in Bombay annuls Bar Council's levy of relocation fee for attorneys transitioning legal practice to Maharashtra

A Judicial Panel, comprising of Justices Suman Shyam and Shyam Chandak, has issued an order in response to a request from a legal professional, aiming to transfer his enrollment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra.

Maharashtra's Court of Bombay rescinds Bar Council's charge for lawyers migrating their practice to...
Maharashtra's Court of Bombay rescinds Bar Council's charge for lawyers migrating their practice to the state

Bombay High Court Declares Transfer Fee Charged by Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as Illegal

In a significant ruling that could have far-reaching implications for advocates seeking to migrate their enrollment within India, the Bombay High Court has declared the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as illegal.

The case in question, Devendra Nath Tripathi and Ors v Union of India and Ors, was heard by the Bombay High Court and was based on Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The ruling pertains to the migration of an advocate's enrollment from another State Bar Council to Maharashtra.

Justice R.I. Chagla, who delivered the verdict, found the transfer fee to be in violation of Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The judge stated that the fee was a direct violation of the Act, and as such, it is illegal.

The ruling has set a precedent for the illegality of the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The Bombay High Court's decision may influence other high courts and the Bar Councils of other states to reevaluate their transfer fee policies.

The case involved the transfer of an advocate's enrollment from another State Bar Council to Maharashtra, and the ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the Advocates Act, 1961, in all matters related to advocates and their enrollments.

The Bombay High Court's ruling on the illegality of the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has the potential to prompt changes in the migration process for advocates in Maharashtra and Goa.

The ruling was made in relation to the transfer of an advocate's enrollment from another State Bar Council to Maharashtra and has significant implications for advocates seeking to migrate their enrollment within India. The case, Devendra Nath Tripathi and Ors v Union of India and Ors, has set a precedent for the illegality of the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

Read also: