2023 (10) TMI 865 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - no contractual document has been filed by the respondent to show the terms between the petitioner and himself - legal practitioner's abuse of the process of the court - HELD THAT - Absolutely, no contractual document has been filed by the respondent to show the terms between the petitioner and himself to show all the litigations defended by him a consolidated fee was agreed to pay by the petitioner. In the absence of such primary document, or even the statement and the complaint, then mere issuing of the cheque in the facts and circumstances of the case will not create any legal liability. This is a classical case of legal practitioner's abuse of the process of the court. So the continuation of proceedings amounts to illegal. Legal process can be undertaken to advance or vindicate the grievance, but it should not be permitted to be taken as an act of aberration, abuse and that too by any legal practitioner. So, the entire process is liable to be quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the quashment of a criminal case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, relating to the payment of legal fees between an advocate and a client.

Case Details:

Issue 1: Allegations and Background
The respondent, an advocate, filed a complaint against the petitioner, alleging non-payment of legal fees amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was agreed upon for various litigations conducted by the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. The complaint was made under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue 2: Mediation Attempt
The matter was referred to mediation due to the fee dispute between the client and the advocate, but no settlement was reached despite several adjournments.

Issue 3: Legal Fee Dispute
The petitioner argued that the respondent's claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- as legal fee was illegal and against the Legal Practitioner's Fees Rules, 1973. The petitioner also highlighted the respondent's non-attendance at the mediation process.

Issue 4: Contingent Fee Argument
The respondent contended that the cheque issued was not solely for legal fees but to discharge overall liabilities owed to the advocate for expenses incurred during legal engagements. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding contingent fees.

Issue 5: Lack of Contractual Document
The court noted that no document indicating the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as legal fee was provided, and there was no contractual agreement specifying the fee for the litigations defended by the advocate.

Issue 6: Legal Practitioner's Fees Rules
The court emphasized that the fee claimed by the respondent appeared to be illegal under the Legal Practitioner's Fees Rules, 1973, and without a valid contractual basis, the petitioner could not be held liable to honor the cheque.

Issue 7: Abuse of Legal Process
The judgment characterized the case as an abuse of the legal process by the advocate, leading to the quashing of the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the criminal original petition, thereby quashing the order in the case pending before the Fast Track Court No.II, Judicial Magistrate Level, Madurai, due to the illegal nature of the fee claim and the abuse of the legal process by the advocate.