9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 441 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyPermission for change of legal representation in the main Company Petition - dispute arose between the Applicant/Corporate Debtor and M/s. Taurus Legal, Advocate, as a result of which the Applicant wishes to seek change of legal representation before this Tribunal - HELD THAT - Considering the willingness of the Advocates on record to give their NoC subject to payment of the balance fee, we are of the considered view that the interests of both parties would be met by allowing the present application for discharge of the Advocates on record, subject to payment of the fee for which invoices have been raised. The main CP cannot be kept pending until the issue of fees to Counsel is settled. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that legitimate right of the Advocates on Record for their fee needs to be protected. The Advocates on Record for the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor shall give discharge in the matter of legal representation of the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor within two days from the date of this order - Independently of such discharge, the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor shall resolve the issue of fee amicably with the Advocates on record, failing which the Advocates on Record are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover their legitimate fee in accordance with law. Application disposed off.
Issues:
Change of legal representation in the main Company Petition CP (IB) No. 2259/2019. Analysis: The Miscellaneous Application (MA) sought a change of legal representation in the main Company Petition due to a dispute over fees between the Applicant/Corporate Debtor and the previous legal representatives, M/s. Taurus Legal, Advocates. The Applicant wished to switch legal representation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered private notice to the previous representatives and scheduled a hearing. The dispute arose as the Applicant had engaged the services of another Advocate, Ms. Neha Gupta, leading to non-payment of fees to her as per the Memo of Fees forwarded. The previous representatives stated they had not exercised any lien over the papers and were willing to provide NoC upon payment of the outstanding balance. The previous representatives cited a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing the obligation of a client to settle fees before changing representation. They highlighted the moral obligation of a Solicitor to receive just fees for services rendered. The Tribunal noted the claim against the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor in the main Company Petition. The Applicant's contention that the fee issue was not fully settled was deemed untenable. The Tribunal observed the timeline of events regarding fee discussions and exchanges between the parties. Considering the Advocates' willingness to provide NoC upon payment of the outstanding fee, the Tribunal decided to allow the discharge of the Advocates on record, subject to settling the fees. The Tribunal emphasized the need to protect the legitimate rights of the Advocates for their fees. The order directed the Advocates to give discharge within two days and instructed the Applicant to resolve the fee issue amicably. Failure to resolve the fee matter could lead to the Advocates initiating legal proceedings to recover their legitimate fees. The Tribunal disposed of the MA accordingly and scheduled the main CP for a hearing on a future date.
|
