Description
TEXT OF JYOTHSNA D'SOUZA'S COMPLAINT TO BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, MAHARASHTRA & GOA & OTHERS IS AS FOLLOWS:
To,
(1) The Secretary, Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India, New Delhi
(2) The Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
(3) The Secretary, Bombay Bar Association
(4) Registrar General of Bombay High Court
Subject: Professional Misconduct & Misleading Legal Opinion issued by M/s. Solicis Lex (Advocates and Solicitors) through its Managing Partner, Advocate AmeetMehta
Respected Sir / Madam,
I am writing to file a formal complaint against Adv. Ameet Mehta, Managing Partner of M/s. Solicis Lex (Advocates and Solicitors).
The source of my grievance is a specific “LEGAL OPINION” (Ref: AVM/SPD/001-2026, dated 13/02/2026), issued with arguably malafide intent to the Managing Committee (MC) of Kailashchandra Co-operative Housing Society Limited (KCHSL), to whitewash and enable the MC’s acts that are prejudicial to the interests of KCHSL, of which I am a member.
Advocate Ameet Mehta was engaged by KCHSL to provide an independent legal evaluation regarding procedural compliance and statutory validity in the selection of a certain party “AA” as Project Management Consultant (PMC) for the redevelopment project of KCHSL.
(Just for context: The commercial value of the land parcel owned and possessed by KCHSL would be in tens or hundreds of crore rupees, and projected turnover revenues from the redevelopment project thereon would go into thousands of crores.)
FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1) KCHSL’s PUBLIC NOTICE/ADVERTISEMENT. A public notice or advertisement was published in leading newspapers on 22nd and 23rd December 2023 invited expressions of interest from “REPUTED AND EXPERIENCED PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (PMC)”. The one solitary requirement / condition for the PMC’s being invited was as per this line of the advertisement: “The society invites expressions of interest from reputed and experienced project management consultants (“PMC”) along with profile & details of organizational assets, WITH REFERENCES OF AT LEAST 5 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EXECUTED SUCCESSFULLY OVER LAST 10-15 YEARS.”
2) SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF “AA”. Subsequently, in Nov 25, “AA” was selected and appointed by the MC of KCHSL. However, it is beyond debate that the said selection/appointment is SUBSTANTIALLY WRONG AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF KCHSL, because AA did not fulfil the abovementioned requirement/condition of having AT LEAST 5 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EXECUTED SUCCESSFULLY OVER LAST 10-15 YEARS.
3) LEGAL OPINION OF M/S SOLICIS LEX. Subsequently, when a dispute arose between the society members and the MC regarding this appointment, MC sought legal opinion from M/s. Solicis Lex / Advocate Ameet Mehta. In his signed legal opinion, Adv. Ameet Mehta opined that the abovementioned precondition /criterion was merely "indicative and aspirational, intended to attract experienced and reputed PMCs, and was not stated as a mandatory disqualification criterion".
WHY ACTIONS OF M/S. SOLICIS LEX / ADV. AMEET MEHTA CAUSE WRONGFUL & UNJUSTIFIED LOSSES TO MANY INTERESTED PARTIES:
In M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (2000), the Supreme Court of India established a definitive legal standard for public procurement: rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun. If a public authority decides to relax or delete essential eligibility criteria post-bid submission, it must cancel the existing process and issue a fresh advertisement.
By ignoring this principle established by the Supreme Court, and attempting to legitimize the arguably unlawful actions of the MC, Adv. Ameet Mehta is aiding, abetting and enabling the misappropriation of an asset worth crores of rupees, on behalf of vested interests.
The course of action that is sought to be legitimized by M/s. Solicis Lex is not only prejudicial to society members, but also to other potential bidders who were more qualified that AA. Qualified corporate entities and larger PMCs were either deterred from applying due to the 5-project requirement published in the public notice, or were excluded, while AA was favoured by an internal evaluation process that was far less stringent than the public notice itself!
RELIEFS SOUGHT:
1. Initiate Disciplinary Action: Initiate formal proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against Adv. Ameet Mehta and M/s. Solicis Lex Advisory for professional misconduct, issuing misleading legal advice, negligence and aiding in abetting to misappropriate valuable lands belonging to KCHSL.
2. Pass Appropriate Directions: Restrain Adv. Ameet Mehta and & M/s. Solicis Lex from issuing such biased and malafide "advisory opinions", abusing the cloak of authority that comes from being an advocate i.e. “officer of the court”.
Place: Mumbai
Date: November 2, 2026
Yours faithfully,
Jyothsna DSouza
Member, Kailashchandra CHSL,