The Madras High Court in a case of dishonour of cheque in relation to payment made to an Advocate and ruled that the contingent fee of and advocate is not a legal claim.
The complainant, V Pavel, is an Advocate practising in Madurai District Court. The petitioner, Davidraj, approached him in 2008 for legal assistance for filing insolvency petition. At that time, the petitioner was facing severe debts approximately Rs.1,32,02,000/- and various criminal cases have been registered, apart from money issue. For rendering the legal assistance, no fee was paid by the petitioner. The complainant conducted several cases.
All the litigations were successfully taken to the logical conclusion. The complainant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as fee. That was also agreed by the petitioner and issued a cheque. It was presented for payment. That was also returned as ‘Funds Insufficient’. So, he issued a notice, demanding payment of money. But he sent reply repudiating the liability.
It was submitted by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent did not even attend the mediation process and that was sending only his juniors. According to the petitioner, the attitude of the respondent must be taken into account. Apart from that, it is submitted that claiming of Rs.10,00,000/- as legal fee is per se illegal and it is against the provisions Legal Practitioner’s Fees Rules, 1973.
The counsel who appeared for the respondent submitted that the above said cheque was not issued only towards the payment of legal fees, but it was discharged the liability of the petitioner to the complainant, since the complainant has incurred several expenses in the course of legal engagement. So according to him, this will not hit under the provisions of the Legal Practitioner’s Fees Rules, 1973.
A Single Bench of Justice G Ilangovan observed that “in the light of the Legal Practitioner’s Fees Rules 1973, the fee that has been claimed by the respondent prima facie shows illegal in nature. So, the illegal claim cannot be construed as legal claim. No legal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner to honour the above said cheque. So, this contention on the part of the respondent is rejected.”
The Court commented that this is a classic 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” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
