Full Judgment Text
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11302/2021 and CM APPL. 35313/2021, CM APPL.
397/2022, CM APPL. 64707/2023
Date of Decision: 18.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPUL PANKAJ SANGHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivanshu kumar, Mr. Prateek
Vaish, Mr. Md Sajid Ansari,
Advocates
versus
NEW DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Archana Kumari, Advocate for
UOI.
Mr. Rashid N. Azam, Advocate for
Impleader.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“ I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ allowing the application of the Petitioner dated
29.08.2020 for transposing the name of the Petitioner in the records of
Respondent No. 1 from being a joint holder to an absolute holder vis-a-vis
Chamber No. 39, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi;
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
10:26:08
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ against Respondent No. 1 thereby directing it to act upon
/ decide the application of the Petitioner dated 29.08.2020 for transposing
the name of the Petitioner in the records of Respondent No.1 from being a
joint holder to an absolute holder vis-a-vis Chamber No. 39, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi;”
2. The petitioner is a practising advocate enrolled with Bar Council of
Delhi and is member of New Delhi Bar Association (respondent No-1),
Patiala House Courts. Respondent no. 2 is Office of District & Session
Judge, Patiala House Courts.
3. Petitioner submits that Chamber No. 39, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi ( hereinafter “Chamber”) was originally allotted to Late Shri M.C.
Sanghi, Advocate and vide certificate dated 14.09.2010 issued by respondent
no.1 the petitioner was recognised as joint holder of the Chamber along with
Late Shri M.C. Sanghi.
4. On 20.07.2020 Late Shri M.C. Sanghi expired. Pursuant, thereto,
petitioner submitted an application dated 29.08.2020 to respondent no.1
seeking transposition of his status from joint holder to absolute holder of the
Chamber.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite submission of the
application and subsequent reminders dated 27.11.2020 and 02.09.2021,
respondent no. 1 failed to take any action. Aggrieved by the same petitioner
made a representation dated 12.02.2021 to respondent no. 2, seeking
redressal of his grievance. However, no action has been taken.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the
grandson of Mr. M. C. Sanghi and for the same reasons he is entitled for
transposition of the Chamber in his name as an independent allottee.
7. The petitioner has also brought on record the extract of the relevant
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
10:26:08
rules, namely, the Memorandum of Rules and Constitution of the New Delhi
Bar Council Association (Amendment), 2018 ( hereinafter „the Rules of
2018‟). Rule 21 thereof, would indicate that the allotment of the Chamber
shall terminate on the following occurrences.
“ 21 The allotment shall terminate;
a.. On its cancellation by Disciplinary Committee; or
b. On its surrender by the allottee concerned; or
c. On the allottee's ceasing to be a member of the Bar
Association;or
d. On the allottee's name being removed from the roll of the Bar
Council of Delhi; or
e. On death ofthe allottee.
Provided that in case of death of an allottee, the Allotment
Committee may in its discretion allot the chamber to his
father/mother/son/daughter/spouse in his/her place, if applicant is
otherwise found eligible as per above rules. ”
8. If the application dated 29.08.2020 is considered, it would indicate
that Chamber was originally allotted to Mr. M. C. Sanghi, Advocate and
admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories who are
entitled for allotment of the Chamber in terms of the Clause „e‟ of Rule 21
of the Rules of 2018. In view thereof, no mandamus can be issued to the
respondent to act contrary to the Rule and to allow the Chamber to the
petitioner.
9. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he is the co-allottee, is
concerned, the same is not justified by any material.
10. Accordingly, the petition along with pending applications, stands
disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2026
aks/mj
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
10:26:08