S KUTTIKRISHNA MENON Vs. COCHIN MERCANTILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Ernakulam rejecting the claim for preferential treatment made in Claim No. 58 of 1959 in Company M.P. No.2 of 1957. The claimant is an Advocate of this Court. He conducted some cases on behalf of the Company in liquidation prior to the initiation of the liquidation proceedings. Amounts have been realised in pursuance of the decrees he obtained for the company and are now in the hands of the Official Liquidator, the respondent before us.

(2.) The contention of the Advocate, which has been negatived, is that he has a lien on those amounts for his fees and expenses. Raman Nayar, J , in his order referring the appeal to a Division Bench for decision said that the question raised - Whether a lien is available to an advocate against the fruits of a decree obtained by him for the fees and other expenses due to him - is a question of general importance, both to the public and to the legal profession. We have had the advantage of hearing not only counsel for the parties but also Mr. V.P. Gopalan Nambiar on behalf of the Advocate General and Mr. C.J. Antony on behalf of the Bar Council.

(3.) In 44 L.J.C.P. 278 Brett, J., said that where an attorney is the meritorious cause of the recovery of property, his lien is to be preferred before other claims; his equitable right is recognised in all the courts. And in AIR 1920 Calcutta 122 Rankin, J., observed: