2012 (9) TMI 1185 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discharge of Solicitors and handing over papers.
2. Non-payment of outstanding fees and refusal to give NOC.
3. Right of solicitors to obtain reasonable fees.
4. Client's right to change advocate.
5. Calculation and settlement of fees.

Summary:

1. Discharge of Solicitors and Handing Over Papers:
The defendant No.1 sought discharge of his solicitors and the handing over of papers and proceedings. The firm representing him had already handed over the papers, which was undisputed.

2. Non-payment of Outstanding Fees and Refusal to Give NOC:
Defendant No.1 contended that the firm refused to give a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for filing the Vakalatnama of new advocates due to non-payment of certain outstanding fees. The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court held that the firm stood discharged by his order dated 25th July, 2012.

3. Right of Solicitors to Obtain Reasonable Fees:
The firm argued that their right to obtain reasonable and legitimate fees charged to their client must be protected by the Court. Defendant No.1 claimed that the fees had been settled and paid, making the refusal to give discharge unreasonable. The firm had sent a bill dated 11th December 1996, which Defendant No.1 challenged in his letter dated 8th July 1997. The firm also produced a letter dated 26th December 2011, showing an outstanding amount of Rs. 5.95 lakhs, with Rs. 2 lakhs paid in part-payment.

4. Client's Right to Change Advocate:
The Prothonotary and Senior Master granted the application for discharge, considering the Supreme Court judgment in R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, which emphasized the client's freedom to change advocates and that a lien cannot be exercised by the advocate. The firm had not exercised a lien over any papers, and all papers had been taken by Defendant No.1.

5. Calculation and Settlement of Fees:
The Court cannot delve into the arithmetical calculation of fees but noted that the bill dated 11th December 1996, for Rs. 8.05 lakhs, had a balance of Rs. 5.95 lakhs after crediting Rs. 2.10 lakhs. Defendant No.1 claimed a settlement for Rs. 11,000, which the firm refuted. The Court observed that the cheque for Rs. 11,000 was returned and could not be accepted as full settlement. The Court concluded that a reasonable amount of fees remained unpaid and granted leave for discharge upon payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the firm.

Order:
1. Upon Defendant No.1 paying Rs. 2 lakhs to his present firm of solicitors, the firm shall stand discharged.
2. Defendant No.1 shall be entitled to be represented by any other firm of advocates.
3. The order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 25th July, 2012, is modified to this extent.