Sign in
Advocates Act

Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee - Advocate Enrollment Fee

CaseCiter

• 1 min read

Advocate Enrollment - In future if it is brought to our notice that any of the State Bar Council is charging beyond the statutory fee prescribed, we shall proceed to hold the responsible authority guilty of contempt - Bar Council of India (BCI) directed to issue written circular to state Bar Councils on directions issued in Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India - None of the State Bar Councils shall withhold the documents produced by the concerned applicant(s) on the ground of non-payment of fees demanded. Once the amount as statutorily prescribed is paid by the applicant(s) and a request is made for return of the documents, those documents shall be immediately returned.

Case Info

Key Details

  • Case name: Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee.
  • Neutral citation: Not provided on this record of proceedings.
  • Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala; Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
  • Judgment/order date: 30-10-2025.
  • Proceedings type: Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59883/2025 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 774/2025.

Caselaws and citations referred

  • Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 352/2023, decided on 30-7-2024.Referred as the controlling judgment whose directions the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils must comply with.

Statutes / laws referred

  • Statutory fee prescribed under the Advocates Act/Bar Council regulations (the order references “statutory fee prescribed” without naming the specific provision).
  • Contempt of Court jurisdiction (warning of holding authorities guilty of contempt if fees beyond statutory limits are charged).
Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee - Advocate Enrollment Fee
Priyadarshini Saha v. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee - Advocate Enrollment Fee.pdf
58 KB
download-circle