A SRIKANTAIAH Vs. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Advocate of this court who defended respondent 2, one Gulam Ahmed, against whom a creditor's petition in insolvency was filed before the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, in I. P. No. I of 1348. The insolvency petition was dismissed on 10-1-1949 with costs and the Advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 25/-. On 24-10-1949, the petitioner prayed for the intervention of the District Court under the summary jurisdiction to direct the Official Receiver for payment of Rs. 3000/-to him being the fees stipulated by his client for defending him in the insolvency proceedings. The basis of his claim as stated in the petition is that the said Gulam Ahmed had agreed to pay a fee of Rs. 3000/- and accordingly in January 1948, the said Gulam Ahmed delivered a cheque on the Bank of Mysore, Ltd. for Rs. 3000/- towards his fee and the cheque remained uncashed, that after the petition was dismissed on 10-1-1949 a fresh cheque for a similar amount was issued in renewal of the earlier cheque and that the second cheque could not be cashed as the assets of the alleged insolvent were not handed over to him by the Official Receiver as directed by the Court. He therefore prayed that as there was no other means of recovering the fee his claim should be given a priority by way of a lawyer's lien over the assets of the alleged insolvent which are within jurisdiction of the Court in preference to other attaching creditors. The learned District Judge disallowed the claim and dismissed the petition. This revision petition is preferred against that order.

(2.) Both the cheques referred to in the petition and alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner by his client in January 1948 and January 1949 were not produced into Court. His client, Gulani Ahmed, however, in an affidavit filed by him admitted the agreement with his Advocate and supported the theory of having issued the two cheques on the Bank of Mysore. The contesting respondent is the Bank of Mysore. They contended in their statement that the said Gulam Ahmed was a merchant and had obtained advances from the Bank for his business. The goods that were sold by the Official Receiver were pledged by the said Gulam Ahmed as a collateral security. The Bank obtained a decree which amounted to Rs. 9300/-. During the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, the Official Receiver was directed to take charge of the goods pledged and tho Official Receiver obtained the goods which were in possession of the Bank and sold the same with the help of the alleged insolvent. The Official Receiver has reported that after deducting the miscellaneous charges and the payment at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem to the alleged insolvent (respondent 2) according to the direction of the Court, a sum of Rs. 4237-1-9 was available with him. On 10-1-1919, the Insolvency Court is said to have directed the Official Receiver to hand over the assets to Gulam Ahmed who affirms in his affidavit that he took charge of the goods from the Official Receiver but that the cash amount was not handed over to him. In the meantime, on 11-1-1949, the cash amount in the hands of the Official Receiver was attached by the creditors of Gulam Ahmed.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he possesses a lien for his fees on the funds in the Court and that the claim of the Advocate baa a priority over the claims of the attaching creditors inasmuch as the funds at the credit of the alleged insolvent in the Court. were recovered and preserved by the exertions of the Advocate. The respondent opposed the claim and stated that the petition is collusive and filed to defraud the honest creditors and that, at all events, the claim is unconscionable and excessively high and contrary to the Let Practitioners Act and also the Civil Rules or Practice and Circular Orders of this High Court in the matter of taxing costs.