Unwarranted adverse remarks against counsel may be expunged absent a real conflict of interest or necessity for decision.

Adverse remarks against an advocate were held unwarranted where they were based on an assumed conflict of interest not supported by the record. The advocate had appeared for a Resolution Professional in one insolvency process and had separately filed a section 7 application for a different company in independent proceedings, which did not amount to representing opposing interests in the same matter. As no professional misconduct or conflict was established, and the observations were not necessary for deciding the application, the remarks were directed to be expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether adverse observations made against an advocate in the order of the Adjudicating Authority were uncalled for and liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The remarks impugned against the advocate were founded on the assumption that he had acted for conflicting interests in the same insolvency process. On the facts, he had appeared for the Resolution Professional in the corporate insolvency resolution process and had separately filed a section 7 application on behalf of a different company in independent proceedings. That separate engagement did not amount to representation of the opposite party in the same matter, and no breach of professional etiquette or conflict of interest was established. The adverse observations were also not necessary for deciding the application before the Adjudicating Authority and were therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks against the advocate were liable to be expunged and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned observations against the appellant were deleted, and the challenge to those remarks succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Unnecessary adverse remarks against counsel, unsupported by a real conflict of interest or by conduct in the same proceeding, may be expunged where they are not essential to the adjudication.

---