9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring CP (IB) No. 2259/2019. The facts leading up to the present MA are as follows. 2. The Applicant/Corporate Debtor was being represented in the main CP by M/s. Taurus Legal, Advocates. A 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. It was mentioned by the Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Corporate Debtor that the dispute is with reference to the fee payable for services rendered by the Counsel for the Applicant/Corporate Debtor in the main CP. 3. The MA came up for consideration before this Tribunal on 29.11.2019. This Tribunal ordered private notice to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings in the matter has already been handed over to the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor in the matter and that no lien over the papers has been exercised. Further, the learned Counsel for M/s. Taurus Legal has reiterated in his submissions the stand taken in para 5 of the reply that the Advocates on record in the present Company Petition are ready and willing to give their NoC in the matter subject to payment of the balance fee. 8. In support of his contention regarding payment of fee, the learned Counsel for M/s. Taurus Legal has relied on a judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 10.09.2012 in Arvind N Savani vs. Maganlal Savani & others [Chamber Order No. 559/2012 in Suit No. 1839/ 1988] wherein it has been held in para 9 and 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Bombay High Court in that matter was referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.08.2000 in RD Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma 2000 (7) SCC 264, which speaks not only of claim of lien, but to the moral obligation of the Solicitor in allowing his client to change his Advocate. 10. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RD Saxena would no doubt apply in cases where the advocate exercises a lien over the papers and retains the case bundle. However, such is not the case here. It is the explicit stand of M/s. Taurus Legal, Advocates, that they have not exercised any lien over the papers and that a copy of the pleadings has been handed over to the client. 11. It is seen from the main Company Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the client, the standing of the counsel, etc. It is a thicket into which this Tribunal would not normally venture, leaving it to the parties to work out the same between themselves. 14. 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. 15. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
