9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also present. 4. We have heard Mr. Ashish O. Lalpuria, learned Authorised Representative for the Applicant/Corporate Debtor and Mr. Vikrant Shetty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Taurus Legal. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Taurus Legal submitted that the Director of the Applicant/Corporate Debtor, Mr. Rai Ashwani Kumar, engaged the services of M/s. Neha Gupta, Advocate, for the purpose of filing vakalatnama, drafting reply and holding various conferences and telephonic conferences from time to time. 6. Accordingly, Ms. Neha Gupta and M/s. Taurus Legal filed the vakalatnama for the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor. Vide email dated 09.09.2019, the Memo of Fees was forwarded to the Applicant/ Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge. A firm who charges an exorbitant fee, which the client cannot and will not pay, certainly cannot resist its discharge, if the client desires to change his Solicitor. It is then that the judgement of the Supreme Court would be applied. 10. However, a Solicitor is entitled to charge his fee. This would be the fees that he would command and not only demand. This would, therefore, be all reasonable fees charged from time to time as per his standing. Those fees would have to be paid. The moral obligation of the Solicitor does not grant a licence to the client to discard his Solicitor at will after he has devoted his time, effort and skill and put in hours of work for which he has charged his client. Such client would be allowed to obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Representative for the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor that the question of fee was never fully settled. This contention is untenable. It is for the client to settle the fee first before engagement of the counsel. From the list of dates and events submitted by the learned Authorised Representative for the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor, it is seen that vakalatnama in the matter was forwarded to Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate, on 19.08.2019. Thereafter, Counsel appeared on behalf of the Corporate Debtor at the hearing held on 21.08.2019. Various correspondences have been exchanged between the parties thereafter. The Memo of fees was raised on 09.09.2019 by email. The first demur with regard to the fee was raised only on 11.09.2019. Thereafter, messag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
