Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Before the Tribunal the learned Government Pleader agreed to argue his case against the respondent on the basis of the facts as they had been set out by the respondent in his explanation. Even on this basis the learned Government Pleader contended before the Tribunal that the agreement in question amounted both to maintenance and champerty and as such it was Illegal and that by entering into such an agreement the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct. The members of the Tribunal did not think it necessary to consider this aspect of the matter because in their, opinion even if the agreement did not amount to maintenance and champerty, it constituted professional misconduct.

9. It is well settled that the English laws of maintenance and champerty are not applicable to India. This point was considered as early as 1876 by the Privy Council in -- 'Ram Coomar v. Chunder Canto', 4 Ind App 23 (B), and since then it has never been doubted that the validity of agreements under the Indian law of contract cannot be challenged on the technical grounds of maintenance and champerty as they are understood under the English law. It may, however, be added that even though the English laws of maintenance and champerty are not of force as specific laws in India, the judgment of the Privy Council in -- 'Ram Coomar Choondoo's case (B)' itself emphasises the fact that agreements of such a kind ought to be carefully watched, and when extortionate, unconscionable, or made for improper objects, ought to be held invalid.

In our opinion, there is no doubt whatever that such agreements are bound to affect the detachment of the lawyer and to impair his status as an officer of the Court, to a very large extent. That is why an agreement between a lawyer and his client which creates in the lawyer a financial interest in the subject-matter of the cause, & that too on a successful determination of the suit, has always been condemned as unworthy of the legal profession.

14. Mr. Gauba frequently referred to considerations which would be relevant in the context of to-day. He criticised the English notions of maintenance and champerty as artificial and he suggested that these notions which had been brought over to this country from across the seas should now be discarded while dealing with the question of professional ethics in our country. The considerations to which I have referred are not based on any technical concept, of maintenance and champerty.

We do not, therefore, propose to consider the American decisions to which Mr. Gauba referred. We would only cite the Editor's note to which our attention was invited by Mr. Gauba himself. The Editor's note in -- 'McMicken v. Perin', (1856) 18 How 507 (J) runs as follows:

"A contract with his client that an attorney shall at his own cost and charge prosecute a claim, for a certain part of the subject in litigation, is clearly champertous, illegal and void.
An agreement that amounts to champerty cannot be supported at law or in equity. Where an attorney purchases from his client the whole subject-matter of controversy for his own benefit, it is champerty, though he has some interest of his own.