The Kerala High Court has clarified that there is no illegality if a Senior Advocate files Joint Vakalatnama along with Junior Advocates for Client.
The single-judge bench of Justice N. Nagaresh ruled that once a client authorises an Advocate to conduct a case, it empowers them to file a joint vakalat on behalf of the client.
Whille allowing the plea, wherei the petitioner, who is an Advocate practising in Manjeri, sought direction to the respondent-Airport Director, Airport Authority of India to pay the petitioner his professional fees amounting to ₹3,37,514/- as certified by the Sub Court, the Court opined that filing a joint vakalat is not a ground to deny any lawyer his professional fee.
When the sent bill for professional charges, he was informed that Advocate Fee can be settled after realisation of the money through Execution Proceedings. To this, he intimated the respondent that payment of Advocate Fee cannot be on the basis of the outcome of the litigation.
Thereupon, the respondent informed the petitioner as per Ext.P5 that an amount of ₹15,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner’s account as per the then prevailing panel advocate fee. The petitioner was also informed that the court determined advocate fee as claimed by the petitioner will be paid after the recovery/realisation of the amount from the judgment debtor. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P6 lawyer notice demanding ₹3,37,514/-. But, the petitioner was not paid the fee.
Citing B. Sunitha Vs. The State of Telengana & ANR., 2017 Latest Caselaw 859 SC, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Advocate Fee cannot be linked to the outcome of the litigation as advocate fee based on percentage of result of litigation is illegal.
On the other hand, the respondent submitted that there is no violation of any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent had engaged only the petitioner for prosecuting the Suit. But, the petitioner filed joint Vakalat along with Advocate Mini Mathew without the knowledge or consent of the respondent. Hence, the respondent has no liability to pay. The respondent has paid the advocate fee as per the approved fee schedule of the respondent.
The Court at the outset rejected the defense of the respondent on Joint Vakalatnama and observed:
"The Vakalat executed by the respondent authorises the petitioner to conduct and prosecute the case. The said authorisation would include authorisation to do all that is necessary to conduct and prosecute the case, including filing joint Vakalat along with junior lawyer in the office of the senior lawyer."
The Court noted that the respondent cannot deny fees if any due to the petitioner on that ground as any senior lawyer having briefs of various clients cannot effectively prosecute or defend cases without the assistance of junior or other lawyers.
"When a client authorises an Advocate to conduct or prosecute a case, the authority given is to conduct/prosecute the case effectively and the Advocate is empowered to file joint Vakalat for and on behalf of the client. There is no illegality in filing a joint Vakalat and the petitioner in Ext.R1(b) has agreed that everything lawfully done or made by the petitioner in the conduct of the Suit shall be as valid and binding on him as if done by the respondent."
The further argument of the respondent that the decree is an ex-parte decree was also rejected as 'unacceptable.'
"If the counsel has indicated in the Statement of costs the legal fee payable without consulting the client or without any agreement in that regard, the client may not be legally bound to pay the said legal fee. But, the certification as to receipt of fee by the counsel will not disentitle the counsel to receive due fees. In this case, it is not in dispute that the respondent has paid only a part payment of ₹15,000/- to the petitioner towards Advocate Fee. The fact that it is only a part payment of Advocate fee is evident from Ext.P5 communication of the respondent."
Allowing the writ petition, the Court passed the appropriate order.
Read Order Here:
Picture Source :