1996 (8) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding engagement of multiple counsels without intimation.
2. Allegations of exorbitant fees and misconduct by counsels.
3. Interpretation of Bar Council rules and Advocates Act provisions.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed a dispute where the appellants engaged a new Counsel without informing the previous Counsel, leading to a disagreement over outstanding dues. The previous Counsel sought directions from the Tribunal regarding the engagement of a new Counsel without his consent. The Bench directed both counsels to appear and explain the situation. The appellants denied owing any amount to the previous Counsel and clarified that they had informed him about engaging a new Counsel for the appeal. The Bench considered the matter and scheduled a hearing to resolve the issue, ensuring justice and fair representation for the appellants.

2. The judgment delved into the allegations of exorbitant fees and misconduct by the counsels involved. The new Counsel representing the appellants argued that the demands for high fees constituted misconduct and could potentially hinder the appeal process, delaying relief for the appellants. The Bench examined relevant sections of the Advocates Act, Bar Council rules, and the Central Excise and Salt Act to determine the course of action. It was emphasized that the delay caused by the counsels could impact the outcome of the appeal, necessitating a resolution to ensure timely and fair proceedings.

3. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the Bar Council of India Rules, Advocates Act provisions, and relevant statutes to address the issue of multiple counsels and fee disputes. The Bench refrained from adjudicating on the financial disputes between the appellants and the counsels, stating that such matters should be resolved independently. However, in the interest of justice and considering the significant stakes involved in the appeal, the Bench permitted a new Counsel to represent the appellants, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and fair representation. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the rules and regulations governing legal representation to maintain the integrity of the legal process.