MARY HELP JOHN DAVID Vs. ANOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pernicious conduct of a member of the legal profession, attempting to stall a decree holder from enjoying the fruits of a decree, until his claim for legal fees is settled, has been, unabashedly brought up for determination before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances pleaded in the writ petition, reveal disconcerting instances for the whole legal fraternity, as an Advocate who had earlier appeared for a decree holder, is attempting to halt the progress of the execution petition, alleging non payment of fees.

(2.) Shorn of all the unnecessary intricate details pleaded, regarding how the petitioner had assisted the claimants in a land acquisition reference to obtain an award in their favour, the brief facts are narrated below: Petitioners are practicing Advocates. They alleged that the first petitioner had been conducting the case of the claimants in LAR No.302/1988 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram from the year 2004 onwards, by giving inputs and advice to the counsel appearing for the claimants in the Sub Court. It is pleaded that, after the award was passed in the aforementioned reference case, an execution petition was filed through the petitioner's colleague at Thiruvananthapuram. Later a No Objection Certificate was obtained from that Advocate in January 2017, and the case was entrusted with the first petitioner. Petitioners allege that, after the State Government deposited the first instalment of the award amount due to the fourth and fifth respondents (hereafter for brevity, referred to as 'the claimants'), differences of opinion regarding Advocate fees arose between them. Later, after deliberations, when the fee was demanded and cheque applications prepared by the petitioners were collected by the claimants assuring to return them back. Subsequently, those applications were submitted to court through new Advocates (respondents 1 and 2), who filed fresh vakalath on 10/10/2024 before the Executing Court, without any No Objection Certificate.

(3.) Petitioners allege that the new Advocates have played fraud by filing vakalath and hence complaints were filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Kerala, the Bar Council as well as the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also alleged that the petitioners even filed EA No.829/2024 in E.P No.140/2013 seeking to dismiss the cheque application and also to stay the matter until the complaints filed by them are decided. Since the High Court refused to intervene on the administrative side, petitioners filed a complaint before the Bar Council.