Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ADV. SHANI A.R., ADV. NAVEEN PRINCE, ADV. MOHAMMED DHULQR SHAN, ADV. VARSHA THOMAS, ADV. ANUVIND P, ADV. JEROME V. SHEEN, ADV. SHALVIN CHAMATHAKAL ROBIN – Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. excess enrollment fee claimed by advocates. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counter affidavit supports petitioners' demand for refund. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court orders refund of excess collected fees. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are all advocates who are members of the Bar Council of Kerala. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the enrollment fee demanded and collected by the 1st respondent.
2. Petitioners alleged that an exorbitant amount of Rs.5,000/- was collected by the Bar Council of Kerala in excess of the permitted fee of Rs.750/- as contemplated under Section 24 (1)(f) of the Advocates Act towards enrollment of Advocates. According to the petitioners, the excess payment of Rs.5,000/- per person is to be refunded since inGaurav Kumar v. Union of India [(2025) 1 SCC 641], it was declared that the 1st respondent could not collect any fee in excess of Rs.750/- prescribed by law.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein, in paragraph No.5, it is affirmed that, in the light of the judgment (wrongly mentioned as Ext.P3 instead of Ext.P2), if the petitioners approach the 1st respondent, the fee in excess of the statutory enrollment fee and st
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
