The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fees of an advocate from his client.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dealing with the matter ‘Kushi & Associates V. The state of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.’ where the Court condemned a Lawyer who told the Court that if his case is dismissed, he would lose his legal fee.
The Court was hearing a plea from an architectural firm challenging its exclusion from the list of firms selected for college renovations in Madhya Pradesh. The bench observed that only an unsubstantiated claim was made that the firms selected were unqualified. The State informed the Court that the firms awarded the consultancy contract were not included as parties in the case. Despite this the petitioner's counsel refused to add them. Justice Ahluwalia noted in the order that when the court questioned the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was not a contractual matter, the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was not a contractual issue but rather a matter, the Petitioner’s counsel argued that it was not a contractual issue but rather a matter of selecting an architectural firm. On examining the merits, the Court concluded that relief could not be granted to the petitioner without first setting aside the selection and allotment of the architectural firms.
The Court refused to accept the argument that the case did not involve a contractual matter but only the selection of architectural firms. The Court inclination to dismiss the case was clear and it said that the order would be dictated in the chamber as it was already late and the lawyer sought an adjournment, the court rejected the request and said it was a glaring example of bench hunting.
In the order passed on August 2, Justice Gurpal Sinh Ahluwalia said that an advocate’s profession is not a business or commercial activity that they pressurize the court for a favorable order so that they can recover their fee from their client. “They are supposed to put forward the case of their client by exercising their professional skills, but they should not try to make the profession, a commercial activity. They cannot pressurize the Court to pass a favorable order, so that they can recover the fee from their client. The Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fee of an Advocate from his client … Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned,” Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia said.
“When the prayer for adjournment was refused, certain comments were passed by counsel for petitioner which were unparliamentary and were not expected from a Lawyer. However, the gist of the comments was that the fee of this case is the livelihood of the Advocate and in case if it is dismissed then he would lose certain money (This is the summary assessed by the Court and not the actual words spoken by the petitioner. The actual words are not being reproduced)” the order said.
Read Order
Picture Source :
