Legal Notice – Advocate Seeks Rs 10 Crore in Defamation Claim Over Representation Dispute
Legal Notice – A new legal controversy has surfaced in the ongoing Ketan Agarwal murder case after Advocate Ashutosh Srivastava issued a legal notice demanding Rs 10 crore in damages from Sahil Goyal, the brother of accused Siya Goyal. The notice alleges that Sahil made defamatory statements questioning Srivastava’s authority to represent his sister, resulting in serious damage to the lawyer’s professional reputation and public standing.
Lawyer Claims Valid Appointment Before Court
According to the legal notice, Srivastava stated that Siya Goyal had officially appointed him as her legal representative through a properly signed vakalatnama. He maintained that the authorization was executed voluntarily by an adult client and was not based on any informal understanding or public claim. The notice further stated that the original signed document has already been submitted before the competent court and that additional original records can be produced whenever required during legal proceedings.
Srivastava asserted that his appointment follows established legal procedures and has been placed before the appropriate judicial authority as part of the case record.
Allegations of Defamatory Public Statements
The legal notice accuses Sahil Goyal of making false and misleading comments before the media without first verifying the court records or communicating with the advocate. It claims these statements wrongly suggested that Srivastava had no legal authority to appear for Siya Goyal.
According to the notice, such public remarks created an incorrect impression that the advocate had falsely projected himself as legal counsel. Srivastava alleged that these claims triggered online trolling, threatening phone calls, public criticism, professional embarrassment, and long-term harm to his legal practice.
Demand for Apology and Withdrawal
As part of the notice, Sahil Goyal has been asked to immediately withdraw the statements that have been described as defamatory. The advocate has also sought a public apology along with a written assurance that similar allegations will not be repeated in the future.
The notice warns that if an acceptable response is not received within the prescribed period, appropriate legal action will follow. This may include a civil defamation suit seeking compensation of Rs 10 crore for alleged reputational and professional losses.
Dispute Emerged Before Court Hearing
The disagreement became public shortly before a scheduled court hearing in the Ketan Agarwal murder case earlier this week. During media interactions, Sahil Goyal questioned Srivastava’s claim of representing his sister and stated that neither he nor other family members had appointed the advocate.
Sahil further alleged that the lawyer may have obtained Siya Goyal’s signature through deceptive means, although these claims remain disputed. His remarks came after Srivastava appeared in several media interviews identifying himself as Siya Goyal’s legal counsel and commenting on developments related to the investigation.
Family Maintains Different Legal Representation
Sahil Goyal has continued to maintain that Advocate Vipul Dushing is the lawyer appointed by the family to represent their interests in the case. He also stated that an affidavit concerning the representation issue has already been submitted before the court.
In addition, Sahil alleged that the family had received threats from Srivastava, an accusation that forms part of the wider disagreement between the two sides.
Separate Legal Battle Adds New Dimension
The latest exchange has introduced a separate legal dispute into the already high-profile Ketan Agarwal murder case. While the primary criminal proceedings continue before the court, the disagreement over legal representation and the subsequent defamation notice have opened an independent legal front involving the accused’s family and the advocate claiming to represent one of the accused.
The outcome of the defamation notice and any future legal proceedings will depend on responses from the parties involved and the findings of the appropriate judicial forums.