IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 8136 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC NO.278 OF 2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER:

Xxxx xxxx BY ADVS.

APOORVA RAMKUMAR V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH RALPH RETI JOHN VISHNU CHANDRAN GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR RESPONDENT:

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The first thing that came racing to my mind, while hearing this matter, was virtually the talismanic statement of justice Joseph Story; "Law is a jealous mistress and requires long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favours, but by lavish homage”.

2. And that is why Lord Elton advised that a lawyer and a judge should live like a hermit and work like a horse.

3. The Bar and the Bench must work tirelessly to stay abreast of the legal metamorphism; being integral parts of the same mechanism, which administers justice. They operate in tandem, each fulfilling distinct yet vital functions within the legal framework.

4. I will first explain the reason for the afore exordium.

5. The petitioner is a young lawyer, who was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner by the Trial Court. There are some controversies qua this, but I propose not to even whisperingly mention it in the judgment because, I am certain that they are irrelevant.

6. What is relevant to this Court is that there is an imputation made against the petitioner – who had been appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to assist a Bank in taking over possession of the secured asset, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – that she did so only “partly” and that even though she was directed again to take full possession, she did not do so, but surrendered her warrant; however, seeking certain amounts as additional remuneration. The learned Judge before whom this matter came up, rejected this request and instead, ordered the petitioner to return a portion, out of the remuneration already received by her; and also issued certain directions in the impugned order, namely Ext.P9, including that the petitioner’s name be removed from the “Panel of Advocates” maintained for the purpose of being appointed as Commissioners in future cases. The impugned order reflects that the petitioner insisted that she was unable to take full possession of the secured asset on account of a “consensus reached between the bank and the borrower”;

and that since she spent “16 hours on the secured asset in three visits'' (sic), she is entitled to additional remuneration, having claimed it for the work done by her per hour; and that she justified this, saying that, had she invested this time in her professional capacity, she would have earned more than this. The learned Judge noticed that the petitioner commenced her career only in the year 2023 and justifiably took umbrage to her claim of being paid by hour; and hence found that she was not even entitled to the remuneration already accepted, particularly because she unequivocally admitted that all expenses for her work had been borne by the bank.

7. The petitioner asserts that she has been unfairly victimized and therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside.

8. Sri.Ralph Reti John – learned counsel for the petitioner, was extremely fair in his submissions, when he said that he does not propose to justify the claim of his client, but sought lenitude for her, saying that she is an inexperienced person, who stepped into the profession with great expectations. He added that his client was under the bonafide impression that she was entitled to seek additional remuneration for the effort she had put in; but conceded that “she ought not to have considered it as work” but