Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Angayarkanni & Another - Appellant
Versus
N. Ponnuswami & Others - Respondent
C.R.P(PD). No. 1149 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided on : 22-11-2018
Legal Profession - Abuse of Process - Order III Rule 4, Rule 20A of Civil Rules of Practice, Legal Practitioners Fees Rules - The court discussed the right of an advocate to claim fees from a client after returning the papers and the necessity of obtaining leave of the Court. It also highlighted the prohibition of stipulating fees contingent on the result of litigation and the need to exercise Article 227 sparingly. The court found the petition to be an abuse of process and imposed costs on the advocate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners engaged the 1st respondent as their counsel for a suit. After certain misunderstandings, the 1st respondent returned the brief and consented to the appointment of a new counsel. The 1st respondent then filed a petition seeking payment of fees, invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition to be an abuse of process, as the 1st respondent had consented to the appointment of a new counsel and the subsequent counsel had been granted leave to appear on behalf of the petitioners. The court also imposed costs on the 1st respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the right of an advocate to claim fees after returning the papers, the prohibition of stipulating fees contingent on the result of litigation, and the exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for obtaining leave of the Court when terminating the appointment of a counsel and the prohibition of stipulating fees contingent on the result of litigation. It also highlighted the necessity of exercising Article 227 sparingly and the consequences of abusing the process of the Court.
Final Decision: The court struck off the petition filed by the 1st respondent and imposed costs on the 1st respondent, directing payment to the District Legal Services Authority.
“Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise”
This quote is fast receding to oblivion. Today we are faced with falling standards in the profession where an unscrupulous few have started commercialising this noble profession and professional ethics have taken a back seat.
2. An advocate is a vital part of the justice dispensation system. In addition to being a professional he is also an officer of the Court. His conduct therefore should not only be impeccable but above reproach. He is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try and protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust.
3. The case of hand is a classic case of this fall in standards and the indignation that is displayed by a member of this noble profession who believes and asserts that he has been deprived of his share in the subject matter which he claims was his agreed fee.
4. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the application filed by their erstwhile counsel for direction that the revision petitioners and Power Agent should deposit a sum of Rs.56,15,000/- to the account of the Court before an order of the termination of his vakalat and accepting the vakalat of the 1st respondent or before hearing the arguments.
5. The brief resume of the facts preceding the filing of I.A.No.532 of 2008 which is the petition which is the subject matter of the revision is stated herein below:
The suit O.S.No.43 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioners herein against respondent Nos.2 to 21 herein for a partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties (The pleadings are not being extracted as they are irrelevant for the disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition). The petitioners had engaged the services of the 1st respondent to file the suit. The 1st respondent had demanded and got his fee and only then he had filed the suit into Court. Thereafter, certain misunderstandings arose with the 1st respondent constraining the petitioners to request the 1st respondent to return the brief along with a vakalat endorsing his “No Objection” for the petitioners engaging another counsel. The 1st respondent had returned the papers giving a consent for a change and the subsequent counsel Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy had also filed his vakalat and has been taking care of the suit. At this juncture the 1st respondent had come forward with the petition, subject matter of the revision.
6. The petition I.A.No.532 of 2008 has been filed with the following cause title which is being extracted below to show how a learned member of the bar with considerable experience to his credit is seeking to bend the legal process by showing the counsels appearing for the parties as respondents.
“IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK COURT NO. COIMBATORE.
O.S.NO.43 Of 2004
I.A.NO.532 Of 2008
1. Angayyarkani
2. Anandha Sabari through their Registered Power of Attorney P.R. Shanmugam ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Advocates No. Ponnusamy BA BL., NOG2 Gem Building, 18 Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.
Versus
1. Angayarkanni
2. Anandasabari by Power Agent P.R. Shanmugam
Advocate, K.Krishnamoorthy, 27 M Gayathri Complex, Huzur Road, Coimbatore 18
3. N.Kandasamy ..Exparte
4. Smt.Nagarathinam
5. Dr.Arumugam .- Advocate Selvaraj.
6. M.Venkatachalam (Died)
7. Smt.Deivanai Ammal Advocate A.P.Jayachandran
8. Thiru.R.Vellingiri
9. Smt.Nachammal – Advocate T.Vivekanandan
10. Thiru.V.Balamurugan
11. Thiru.Nallathambi
12. Smt.N.Muthulakshmi
13. Thiru.N.Murugesan
14. M/s.S.K.P.Medicals (SA.K.Nawaz Advocate)
15. M/s.Hotel Chola
16. M/s.Arasan Sheet Covers (Gowri Shankar Advocate)
17. M/s.Uma Bakery
18. M/s.Masani Ammal rice Mandi – Exparte
19. M/s.Elite Wines (Tenants in Ist schedule since vacated hence exonerated)
20. Thiru.Parthian
21. Thiru.Gauthaman (Tenants in IInd item since vacated
22. Thiru.Ilango and to be exonerated)
23. Smt.Annapoorani (4th Defendant's heir and legal heirs/ V.K.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
