SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Ker) 383

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI
Saxena – Appellant
Versus
Balram Prasad – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The main issue posed in this appeal has sequential importance for members of the legal profession. The issue is this: has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client? In this case the Bar Council of India, without deciding the above crucial issue, has chosen to impose punishment on a delinquent advocate debarring him from practicing for a period of 18 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The advocate concerned was further directed to return all the case bundles which he got from his client - respondent - without any delay. This appeal is filed by the said advocate under S.38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2. As the question involved in his appeal has topical importance for the legal profession we heard learned Counsel at length. To appreciate the contentions we would present the factual backdrop as under:

Appellant, now a septuagenarian, has been practicing as an advocate mostly in the courts at Bhopal, after enrolling himself as a legal practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. According to him, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. ('Bank' for short) in 1990 and the



































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top