Disposed¶27

Vijay Sopan Machinder v. Directorate of Enforcement

Bombay HC8 Jul 2025BA/5435/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, single judge (Amit Borkar, J.), order dated 26-08-2025 in Bail Application No.5435 of 2024 with Interim Application No.1487 of 2025 (applicant Rajendra Nihalchand Surana); applicant Vijay Sopan Machinder v. Directorate Enforcement. Keywords: change of counsel, new advocate, part-heard matter, continuity of arguments, judicial discipline, reopening arguments, bail application adjourned to 9 September 2025. No statutory provisions or precedents were cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction that Mr. Sandeep Karnik, who had earlier appeared and partly argued, shall continue to represent the applicant and conduct the proceedings; the bail application is listed on 9 September 2025. ¶27

Vijay Sopan Machinder vs Directorate of Enforcement — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether, in a part-heard bail application, the newly engaged Advocate may be permitted to take over from and reopen arguments in place of the earlier Advocate (Mr. Sandeep Karnik) who had already partly argued the matter.

¶23

Court's answer

Allowing the newly engaged Advocate to reopen the matter would disturb the part-heard stage of the proceedings and amount to permitting a fresh hearing in disregard of judicial discipline.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Continuity of arguments in a part-heard matter is a well-recognised principle: once a matter is partly argued by particular counsel, propriety demands that the same counsel continue and complete the arguments, unless exceptional circumstances are shown, to avoid repetition of arguments, wastage of judicial time and inconsistency in submissions.

¶22

Key takeaways

Mere engagement of a new counsel by the applicant after the matter has become part-heard cannot be accepted as a valid reason to deviate from the settled course of continuity.ratio¶23
Directed that the Advocate who had earlier appeared and partly argued, namely Mr. Sandeep Karnik, shall continue to represent the applicant and conduct the proceedings in the matter.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No.5435 of 2024 (with Interim Application No.1487 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Amit Borkar, J.) — Change of counsel in a part-heard matter. After the bail application became part-heard at the stage of arguments, with Mr. Sandeep Karnik having already partly argued for the applicant, the applicant engaged a new Advocate who had been merely present in Court without addressing it. Held: continuity of arguments in a part-heard matter is well recognised; propriety demands that the same counsel continue and complete the arguments unless exceptional circumstances are shown, so as to avoid repetition of arguments, wastage of judicial time and inconsistency in submissions; allowing the new Advocate to reopen the matter would disturb the part-heard stage and amount to a fresh hearing in disregard of judicial discipline; mere engagement of a new counsel after part-hearing is not a valid reason to deviate. Directed that Mr. Sandeep Karnik shall continue to represent the applicant and conduct the proceedings; matter listed on 9 September 2025.

¶1

5-ba-5435-2024 connected.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR SHABNOORAYUB AYUBPATHAN PATHAN Date: 2025.08.26 15:22:47 +0530

¶6

Vijay Sopan Machinder … Applicant V/s. Directorate Enforcement … Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1487 OF 2025 IN

¶9

BAIL APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2024

¶10

Rajendra Nihalchand Surana … Applicant In the matter between Vijay Sopan Machinder … Applicant V/s. Directorate Enforcement … Respondent

¶11

Mr. Harshad Rajeshirke a/w Saurabh Rajeshirke i/b Sandeep Karnik for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for the State – respondent.

¶13

Mr. Yashashree Raut h/f Manisha Jagtap for the ED.

¶14

Mr. Prabhat Pandey a/w Ridhina Mangaonkar, Dinesh Ladhwani, S. Gupta, Sonar i/b W Three Legal LLP for the applicant.

¶15

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2025

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

The record shows that the applicant has now engaged a new Advocate, who has appeared in the matter today. It is not in

¶18

¶19

5-ba-5435-2024 connected.doc

¶20

dispute that on the earlier occasion, Mr. Sandeep Karnik, learned Advocate, had represented the applicant and had already advanced submissions to some extent. The present matter is, therefore, part-heard at the stage of arguments.

¶21

It is further seen that the newly appointed Advocate was merely present in Court on the last date, when Mr. Karnik had argued the matter. He did not address the Court nor participate in the arguments. At this juncture, allowing the newly engaged Advocate to reopen the matter would not only disturb the partheard stage of the proceedings but would also amount to permitting a fresh hearing in disregard of judicial discipline.

¶22

The principle of continuity of arguments in a part-heard matter is well recognised. Once a matter is partly argued by a particular counsel, propriety demands that the same counsel should continue and complete the arguments, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Such a rule is necessary to avoid repetition of arguments, wastage of judicial time, and to ensure consistency in the submissions already made.

¶23

In the present case, no sufficient ground has been shown as to why the Advocate who had partly argued the matter should not continue. Mere engagement of a new counsel by the applicant, after the matter has become part-heard, cannot be accepted as a valid reason to deviate from this settled course.

¶24

Accordingly, in the interest of fairness, orderly conduct of proceedings, and judicial discipline, it is directed that the Advocate who had earlier appeared and partly argued, namely Mr. Sandeep

¶25

¶26

5-ba-5435-2024 connected.doc

¶27

Karnik, shall continue to represent the applicant and conduct the proceedings in this matter.

¶28