Supreme Court of India
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus A.K. SAXENA
- Decided
- 7 November 2003
- Judges listed
- S.N. VARIAVA, AR. LAKSHMANAN
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 386 · 2003 INSC 619
- Also cited as
- AIR 2004 SC 311
- (2004) 1 SCC 117
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (page_count_mismatch). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 386, margin G
This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court dated 3rd April, 2002. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was an advocate on panel of the appdlants. As such a number of matters used to be assigned to him It appears that some dispute arose between the appellants and the respondent as a result of which the respondent was asked to return all papers. The respondent was willing to return the papers provided that all his fees were paid.
pp. 386–387, margin G
It appears that when appeal from Order No. 24 of 1999 was on the Board of the High Court, the respondent moved an application before the High Court saying that he has been· asked to return the files and therefore h~ may be discharged on payment of his full fees. On such application, the High Court relying on earlier judgments passed the following order:
p. 387, margin A
"In view of the above decisions of this Court, the applie&tion of Sri A.K. Saxena is allowed and he is granted leave for being discharged as counsel for the appellant. However, the appellant New liidia Assurance Co. Ltd., shall pay his full fees. On payment of full.fees, he wiU immediately return the files as required, by the appellant
p. 387, margin C
company in letter, Annexure 2."
p. 387, margin C
· After this appeal .was filet by an order dated 9th October, 2003, this . ·Court directed the respondent to return all the files. We are informed that all the files have been returned. Learned counsel for the respondent insists that full fees for all the matters must be paid to him.·
p. 387, margin D
Learned senior counsel for the appellants states that no fees is payable to the respondent. In our view, it is not for this Court, as· it was not for the High court, to adjudicate upon· such a disputed question of fact. The High Court should not have given the directions it did also because at the time the High court passed the impugned order, a writ petition No. 27380 of2001 was pending. In this writ petition the respondent had claimed payment of his fees.
p. 387, margin E
·This. case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in R.D. Saxena_ v. Bairam Prasad Sharma reported in [2000) 7 SCC 264 wherein this Court has held that advocates have no lien over the papers of their clients. It is held that at the most the advocate may resort to Legal remedies for unpaid . remuneration. It has been held that the right of the litigant to have the files _ . returned to him is a corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate and that dispute regarding fees would be a !is to be decided in an appropriate proceeding in Court.
p. 387, margin F
We do not go into this question as to whether -- or not fees are payable to the respondent. It will be open for the respondent to file appropriate A proceedings for recovery of his fees. The fact that, because of the impugned order, he has withdrawn his earlier writ petition would not preclude him from filing any other appropriate proceeding. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed B
pp. 387–388, margin G