2022 Supreme(Telangana) 210

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani, JJ.
B.V.Subbaiah, S/o Raghavaiah - Appellant
Vs.
Andhra Bank Rep. by its Chairman, Andhra Bank Buildings, Opposite RBI, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. - Respondents
City Civil Court Appeal No.89 of 2011
Decided On : 31-01-2022

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Articles 18, 113 , 56 - Section 14 - Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Section 2 (10) - Suit for recovery of amount - Defendant bank for refusing to pay the amount - Appellant/plaintiff in brief was that he filed a suit for recovery of amount with subsequent interest - Plaintiff submitted that he was a practicing advocate for more than 5 decades and he was a standing counsel for various banks and companies including the defendant bank i.e. Andhra Bank - Defendant bank entrusted several matters to the plaintiff before various Courts, Tribunals, Forums - He also appeared before State Consumer Forum on behalf of the bank and rendered his services - Several matters were disposed off - But defendant bank, though a nationalized bank, had not chosen to pay his fees, not even expenses incurred, in spite of several requests made by him - Respondent bank demanding fee but as there was no response from them, having no option, filed writ petitions Hon’ble High Court to pay mentioned amounts together with interest from dates of default - Both writ petitions were clubbed and Hon’ble High Court vide order - There was no contract agreed between them as to the amount of fee to be paid - Fee had to be paid as per Advocates Fee Rules - If value of suit was more than junior along with senior could be engaged and the junior fee was also payable - Defendant bank was approbating and reprobating - Defendant stated that they had already paid by letter in another breath, defendant did not choose to reply to letters addressed for payment - One of grounds taken by defendant bank for refusing to pay amount in respect that he left country for some time - For a short time he stayed abroad for getting treatment to his wife’s ailment - defendant bank could not transfer cases without obtaining consent of counsel on record - He never informed bank that he abandoned profession. His services were not terminated and no proceedings were initiated in the said regard - Defendant bank paid fee as per Advocates Fee Rules in the matter before tribunal earlier - Defendant bank being a State instrumentality had not replied to letters addressed by him claiming fees and expenses which were legally due and lawfully payable - Even stamp expenses for vakalats were not paid - Defendant bank was due a total sum – Held, Apparent that an advocate was entitled to be paid his full fee and a change of advocate could not be made without the permission of the court and the right to fee of a counsel was not dependent on the quantum of work that he actually did in the Court - trial Court erred in not appreciating the precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court - Court and the High Courts of other States - Considered necessary to make an observation about conduct of defendants, a Nationalized Bank, towards their Standing Counsel in respect of his financial claim by adopting dilatory tactics and raising technical pleas to avoid payments and making him to take recourse to prolonged litigation by wasting time not only in terms of money but also valuable time of counsel and the court is highly reprehensible - Relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence - Client engages a lawyer for personal reasons and he is at liberty to leave him also for the same reasons - But the lawyer, in turn, is not an agent of his client and is a dignified, responsible spokes person- lawyer of Government or a public body is not its employee but is a professional practitioner engaged to do the specified work though he is on the full-time rolls of Government and public bodies are described as their law officers. Being a responsible officer of court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice - Lawyer also owes a duty to court as well as to opposite side - He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done - He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client - Appeal is allowed