9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and legitimate fees charged by them to their client must be protected by the Court and subject to such protection the order of discharge may be made with which the firm would have no complaint. 5. Defendant No.1 appeared in person against his own firm of solicitors. He showed the Court the correspondence between them and contended that its fees have been settled and paid as settled so that the refusal to give discharge was unreasonable and hence the order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master must be upheld. The firm has sent its bill to Defendant No.1 under its letter dated 11th December, 1996. Defendant No.1 claims that he has challenged each item of the firm's bill dated 11th December, 1996 in his letter dated 8th July 1997 which has not been replied by the Solicitor. He claims that if that letter is read the Court would be satisfied that nothing is due and payable and hence the resistance to allow discharge of the Advocate by Defendant No.1 is inequitable and unjust. 6. The Solicitor of Defendant No.1 has shown the bill sent to Defendant No.1 under the firm's letter dated 26th December 2011. There are various heads of charges for various matters for which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 obtain discharge only upon payment of just fees of the Solicitor. It is in that regard that the Solicitor has drawn my attention to the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of AlokikTrading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. 3 Ors Vs. C.R. Iyyer 2000(1) GLR 495. It shows how the Court has a dual duty to protect a litigant who desires to change the Advocate and to protect the Advocate for payment of his just fees and not relegate him to filing a separate suit. The right of discharge must, therefore, complement the right to fees. 11. Defendant No.1 sought the court's permission to be assisted by an advocate. Though the firm had not been discharged, he was allowed to be represented in this application by another advocate. His advocate has been heard. The firm through its counsel showed the court the law with regard to obtaining discharge. The position of facts and law between the parties must be first considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that thereafter the firm has not made a single demand for the outstanding amount. Hence he seeks to contend that that would show that the amount payable as fees is settled. 15. It appears that after many years certain mediation took place. A mediation award came to be passed which was to be executed as a decree by way of certain consent terms between the parties. Though this aspect is not fully understood, it appears that the parties had settled and an order in terms of the settlement had to be obtained. The firm refused to act upon any such settlement for a number of years and hence defendant No.1 sought to have the firm discharged to appoint new advocates to represent him in ultimately settling the suit. It is then that the firm of solicitors has sent their bill annexed to their letter dated 26th December, 2011 relied upon by defendant No.1 in the affidavit in support of Chamber Order. The bill of costs show the outstanding bill of defendant No.1 for various matters including the above suit. The amount payable in respect of the suit is, however, the largest amount claimed. This amount bears reference to the earlier bill sent in December, 1996. From 3.95 lacs which rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharge is made out. The Court would have to consider the aspects of the fees of the pleader/advocate and the papers of the client. The terms and conditions that the Court may specify would be with regard to either or both of these aspects. A reading of the aforesaid rule also shows that it would be upon the satisfaction of the Court that both the pleader as well as client have been dealt with reasonably, that an order of discharge would be made. It is common knowledge that the pleader cannot, by simplicitor wanting discharge, obtain a discharge. He would have to inform the client, return the papers and then claim discharge. Similarly, therefore, a client cannot simplicitor require a pleader who has worked for him to be discharged to engage another pleader without paying the fees of the pleader. That would tantamount to encouragement of abuse. A pleader and advocate or solicitor is an officer of the Court and must be as much protected as the litigant himself for whom the Courts are established. Consequently the satisfaction of the Court with regard to the protection of both these parties is required. 20. In the case of NaryandasSundarlal Rathi Vs. Narayandas Harbhagal AIR 1932 B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully settled or whether they remained due and payable for the work done since many years prior to discharge being claimed. 24. The case of BasudeoRam Govind V. Vachha Co. AIR 1955(4) Bom. 126 related to a solicitor seeking to proceed against the client of the opposite party with whom his client sought to settle the dispute without the assistance of the solicitor and before payment of the fees of the solicitor. Though the solicitor was held entitled to claim the amount deposited in the Court which was to the credit of the suit, he was held not entitled to proceed against the opposite party simplicitor upon the settlement of the suit by his client with the other side in the absence of collusion between the parties. In Paragraph 14 of the Judgment, to which my attention was drawn by counsel on behalf of the firm, Chief Justice Chagla enumerated the various facilities which the court granted to a solicitor as its officer; his costs could be taxed, he could get a pay order from the chamber Judge which he could be executed as a decree. The Court gave its own officer who is the solicitor equitable interference by the Court. That would be the equitable jurisdiction exercised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the costs incurred in this suit. The costs in this suit remained unpaid. According to the firm it is ₹ 3.37 lacs. According to defendant No.1 it was ₹ 11,000/-. ₹ 11,000/- is shown to be a unilateral payment. It is made after his letter dated 8th July, 1997 was withdrawn by him. He has not shown any writing to show that his fees were settled. Payments of cheque of ₹ 11,000/- against the bill of ₹ 3.37 lacs cannot be accepted as payment made in full and final settlement to settle all the disputes between the solicitor and the client. This cheque has not even been encashed. It was returned after about two months. The solicitor did not serve the client thereafter. When the client insisted upon service, the firm of solicitors insisted upon payment its fees. There was nothing more that the firm could do. The matter remained at that. 28. Now that discharge is sought, the Court may grant leave to Defendant No.1 to determine the appointment of the firm upon payment of reasonable amount of fees remaining unpaid. As aforesaid, the Court cannot go in to detailed arithmetics of the claim. However, the claim shows the payment of counsel fees of ₹ 2.85 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
