Supreme Court of India
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs A.K. Saxena on 7 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 311, 2004 (1) SCC 117, 2003 AIR SCW 6156, 2003 ALL. L. J. 3062, (2003) 12 ALLINDCAS 17 (SC), 2004 (1) ALL CJ 501, 2004 (1) UJ (SC) 591, 2003 (7) SLT 131, 2003 (12) ALLINDCAS 17, (2004) 1 JCJR 111 (SC), (2004) 1 ALLMR 18 (SC), (2004) 1 CLR 117 (SC), (2004) 2 JCR 54 (SC), 2004 ALL CJ 1 501, 2004 UJ(SC) 1 591, 2004 (3) SRJ 380, (2003) 9 SCALE 531, (2003) 8 SUPREME 128, (2004) 1 RECCIVR 231, (2003) 12 INDLD 159, (2004) 120 COMCAS 284, (2003) 53 ALL LR 810, (2004) 3 BOM CR 753, (2004) 1 LAB LN 446, (2004) 2 MAD LJ 13, (2004) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 568, (2004) 1 CIVILCOURTC 255, (2004) 1 PUN LR 650, (2004) 3 MAD LW 170, (2004) 1 JCR 158 (JHA), (2004) 1 EASTCRIC 69, (2004) 1 BLJ 369, (2003) 6 KANT LJ 532, (2005) 2 TAC 156, (2004) 1 PAT LJR 97, (2004) 2 CIVLJ 363, (2004) 1 JLJR 40, (2005) 1 ACJ 66
Bench: S.N. Variava, Ar. Lakshmanan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8957 of 2003 PETITIONER: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. RESPONDENT: A.K. SAXENA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/2003 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(5) SCR 387 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted.
This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court dated 3rd April, 2002. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was an advocate on panel of the appellants. As such a number of matters used to be assigned to him It appears that some dispute arose between the appellants and the respondent as a result of which the respondent was asked to return all papers. The respondent was willing to return the papers provided that all his fees were paid.
It appears that when appeal from Order No. 24 of 1999 was on the Board of the High Court, the respondent moved an application before the High Court saying that he has been asked to return the files and therefore he may be discharged on payment of his full fees. On such application, the High Court relying on earlier judgments passed the following order:
"In view of the above decisions of this Court, the application of Sri A.K. Saxena is allowed and he is granted leave for being discharged as counsel for the appellant. However, the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., shall pay his full fees. On payment of full fees, he will immediately return the files as required by the appellant company in letter, Annexure
2."
After this appeal was filed, by an order dated 9th October, 2003, this Court directed the respondent to return all the files. We are informed that all the files have been returned. Learned counsel for the respondent insists that full fees for all the matters must be paid to him.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants states that no fees is payable to the respondent. In our view, it is not for this Court, as it was not for the High court, to adjudicate upon such a disputed question of fact. The High Court should not have given the directions it did also because at the time the High court passed the impugned order, a writ petition No. 27380 of 2001 was pending. In this writ petition the respondent had claimed payment of his fees.
This case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in R.D. Saxena V. Balram Prasad Sharma reported in [2000] 7 SCC 264 wherein this Court has held that advocates have no lien over the papers of their clients. It is held that at the most the advocate may resort to Legal remedies for unpaid remuneration. It has been held that the right of the litigant to have the files returned to him is a corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate and that dispute regarding fees would be a lis to be decided in an appropriate proceeding in Court.
We do not go into this question as to whether or not fees are payable to the respondent. It will be open for the respondent to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of his fees. The fact that, because of the impugned order, he has withdrawn his earlier writ petition would not preclude him from filing any other appropriate proceeding. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.