LexC.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN versus STATE BANK OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
-
C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN
A
v.
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
Or. 3. R. 4(2)-{:hange of advocate-Application for-Advocate work-
ing against interests of client-Client asking for "No objection Certificate" to C
engage another counsel-Advocate insisting on payment of fee and refusing
to give consent-Application for change of advocate with leave of
Court-Held, courts below were right in holding that advocate was not entitled
to fee as a matter of right-Counsel cannot insist on fees as a condition to
give consent-Conduct of Counsel led to loss of confidence in him by
client-Client entitled to change the counsel-Appellant advocate is directed D
to give unconditional consent to change the counsel-Respondent client
would pay over to the appellant one fourth of the scheduled fees under Tamil
Nadu Legal Practitioners' Fees Rules 1973; Practice and Procedure; Civil
Rules of Practice and Circular Orders (Vol. I) (as applicable in Tamil
Nadu~R. 20-A; Tamil Nadu Legal Practitioners' Fees Rule, 1973.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15418 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.96 of the Madras High
Court in C.R.P. No. 711 of 1996.
F.S. Nariman, Ashok Sagar and Ms. Punita Singh for the Appellant.
R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The appellant is an Advocate, appearing for the State Bank of India
E
F
G
as its counsel, he filed the suit, viz., O.S. No. 8/1985 on the file of Sub-
H
67
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A
Court, Coimbatore to recover a sum of Rs. 2.42 crores and odd against
RMT Drill (P) Ltd. and its partners. It is not in dispute that the appellant
had issued a Public notice in which he had claimed that C. V. Ramaswami
son of Venkatasubba Naidu and others had lost the title deeds and that
they intended to alienate the land described in the original sale deed No.
B
c
669 dated February 21, 1972 and invited objections. It is not in dispute that
I he said persons had hypothecated the properties covered by the sale deed
with the respondent-Bank and had deposited the title deeds with the
respondents and that the appellant had knowledge of it as counsel of the
Bank having been engaged in that title suit with the Bank. Obviously,
therefore, after going through the publication, the respondents lost con-
fidence in the appellant who had acted against the interest of the Bank.
So, the officers had asked him to give "No Objection Certificate" so as to
enable them to engage another Counsel. Though they were right in saying
that he was not diligently appearing on behalf of the Bank in the suit,
without imputing motives to the appellant, he had taken advantage of it.
D That led the appellant to claim his fees. He insisted that until the fees are
paid he would decline to appear and refuse to give consent necessitating
the Bank to file petition to revoke power and permission to engage another
counsel.
E
F
It would appear that he also insisted upon an apology from the
officer by writing the letter. In the circumstances stated above, the officer
rightly had not given any apology. The question is : whether the Court
should have given a conditional leave to the counsel to appear on behalf
of the respondent-Bank for conducting the suit. Shri F.S. Nariman, learned
senior counsel for the appellant contended that under Order lll, Rule 4(2),
CPC read with Rule 20-A of the Civil Rules of Practice it is open to the
parties either to change the counsel or engage a new counsel with the
consent or with the leave of the Court. Until the leave is granted, the
consent \Vho entered appearance on behalf of the parties is entitled to
remain on record. As a condition for his withdrawal from record and giving
consent to another counsel to appear on behalf of the respondent-Bank,
G the appellant is entitled to insist upon payment of the fees. That was not
acceded to by the trial Court and in the revision the High Court in the
impugned order in CRP No. 711/96 dated March 29, 1996 has confirmed
the order of the Subordinate Judge. Until the proceedings are concluded
the appellant has no right to collect the fees as a matter of course. We find
H no force in the contention of Shri Nariman. The appellant cannot insist
-
C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIANv. STExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.