Madras High Court: Illegal Fee of Advocate Is Not A Legal Claim

Authored by - Arjun Pandey (Intern at Legal Soch Foundation)

The news deals with proceeding against client for dishonour of cheque to advocate

Keywords - High court, Per se illegal, Dishonour of cheque, Negotiable instruments act, contractual

Bench of Justice - Justice G. Ilangovan

In the Madras High Court, a client has been proceeded against under the Negotiable Instruments Act because of a complaint by a lawyer for dishonour of a check as it was assumed to be a fee, which is per se illegal as per the Legal Practitioners Rules.

Justice G. Ilangovan observed that the continuation of proceedings against the client would be an abuse of the process of law.

In the Madras High Court, V. Pavel, an advocate in Madurai, filed a private complaint against Davidraj for dishonour of a check.

In this complaint, Pavel claimed that Davidraj had approached him in 2008 for legal assistance because he was facing debts of more than 1.3 crore and various criminal cases. Pavel further claimed that Devidraj never paid him any fees for his legal assistance, but Devidraj had given him the assurance that a sale deed would be executed for 10 cents. Pavel also complained that in November 2012, he even allowed Devidraj to stay in his office because he was facing a life threat.

However, Pavel demanded 10 lakhs of rupees from Devidraj, and Devidraj gave him a check, but the check was returned because of insufficient funds. Thus, Pavel filed a private complaint.

Devidraj argued that the amount of Rs 10 lakhs claimed by Pavel was illegal as per the Legal Practitioner Fees Rule 1973.

Pavel claimed that the check was not only for the legal fee but for several expenses during the course of the legal engagement.

The court agreed with the submission made by Davidraj that there is no document or agreement to show that the amount paid to Pavel was paid to him for his litigation work.

Thus, the court observed that the payment was not contractual in nature, and as per Apex Court decision "B. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana and Another," when the payment is not contractual, the petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable.

In the absence of a primary document, the mere issuing of the check, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, will result in no legal liability.

The court noted that the fee claimed by Pavel was prima facie illegal; thus, as per the rules, no legal liability could be locked upon Devidraj.

Follow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/

Telegram Link - https://t.me/legalsochfoundation

Those interested in reading News, can join this group - https://chat.whatsapp.com/Ez1LHrBwTrtKysBz4nViKt