High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Two Advocates for Stalling Execution Proceedings Over Unpaid Fee Dispute; Holds Advocate Has No Right to Halt Legal Proceedings Until Fee Claim Is Settled [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has held that an advocate has no right to stall or halt legal proceedings on the ground that his fees have not been paid by his former client, and that any claim for unpaid professional charges due from a private litigant cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further held that an advocate, after the termination of his engagement, cannot dictate, control, or navigate the proceedings in a case, has no lien over the case bundles or the proceedings, and cannot demand to be permanently engaged in litigation by the litigant till its culmination. The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹50,000, directed to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority at Ernakulam within six weeks.

The writ petition was filed by two practising advocates who alleged that the first petitioner had been conducting a land acquisition reference case (LAR No. 302/1988 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram) on behalf of the claimants since 2004, initially through a colleague and thereafter, following a No Objection Certificate obtained in January 2017, holding a vakalath in the execution petition (EP No. 140/2013). The petitioners alleged that after the State Government deposited the first instalment of the award amount, differences over advocate fees arose between them and the claimants. Subsequently, the claimants collected cheque applications prepared by the petitioners on the assurance of returning them, but instead submitted those applications to the court through new advocates, respondents 1 and 2, who filed a fresh vakalath on 10.10.2024 before the executing court without any No Objection Certificate.

The petitioners filed complaints before the Chief Justice of Kerala, the Bar Council, and the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and also filed EA No. 829/2024 in EP No. 140/2013 seeking dismissal of the cheque application and a stay of proceedings until their complaints were decided. Through the writ petition, the petitioners sought a declaration that the decisions permitting the claimants to appoint another advocate were invalid, a direction to maintain the status quo of the execution proceedings until the Bar Council decided their complaint, and a direction to the claimants to return money allegedly illegally encashed by them.

The first and second respondents, the new advocates, filed a counter affidavit stating that they had filed the vakalath at the claimants’ request after the claimants expressed a loss of confidence in the petitioners, and that they had not induced or coerced the claimants. The claimants (respondents 4 and 5) filed a counter asserting that the first petitioner had already been paid amounts exceeding ₹25,00,000 through bank transactions, along with further amounts in cash, and that it was only after the first petitioner allegedly demanded an additional ₹1 crore that they changed the vakalath. The claimants further alleged that the first petitioner had harassed them, threatened not to take further steps unless the amount was paid, refused to relinquish his engagement unless paid ₹1 crore, and had also engaged another lawyer without their consent or knowledge.

The Court, after hearing all parties, observed that the facts disclosed an unpleasant situation of an advocate attempting to stall execution proceedings pursuant to a land acquisition award on the ground of non-payment of fees. The Court held that a dispute relating to non-payment of fees to an advocate by a private litigant must be agitated before a competent civil court in accordance with law, and cannot be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to its earlier decision in Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education [(2025) 3 KLT 479], where it had observed that fair payment to an advocate is essential to ensure the independence, dignity, and non-subordination of the legal profession, the Court clarified that those observations were made in the context of the State or its instrumentalities denying payment of fees and could not be extended to instances of fees allegedly due from private litigants.

The Court examined the Bar Council of India Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961, specifically Rules 20, 28, and 29 dealing with Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette (Chapter II, Section II). It noted that Rule 20 prohibits an advocate from stipulating a fee contingent on the outcome of litigation, and that Rules 28 and 29 provide that, after termination of engagement, the advocate may only appropriate or deduct fees from amounts remaining unexpended in his hands. The Court held that an advocate cannot, under any circumstances, push a litigant into a corner or blackmail the litigant into paying fees. Even worse, the Court observed, is when an advocate, after termination of engagement, attempts to stall the very proceedings in which he was appearing—characterising such conduct as an affront to the nobility of the profession.

The Court further held that Rule 15 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette stipulates that an advocate’s duty to fearlessly uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means survives even after termination of engagement, in the sense that the advocate cannot act against the interests of a former client.

Relying on R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma [(2000) 7 SCC 264], where the Supreme Court held that no professional can be given the right to withhold returnable records on the strength of any claim for unpaid remuneration, and that a litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels the advocate is not capable of effectively representing him, the Court reiterated that such an obligation is not only a legal duty but also a moral imperative. The Court further noted that where an advocate refuses to issue a No Objection Certificate, Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice in Kerala expressly permits the party to obtain the court’s permission to engage another advocate.

The Court also referred to O.P. Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [(2011) 6 SCC 86], where the Supreme Court observed that the relationship between an advocate and a client is founded on utmost trust, and that any violation of professional ethics is both unfortunate and unacceptable.

The Court observed that it was disturbing that two members of the legal profession had filed such a writ petition and had successfully stalled the disbursement of the decretal amount to the rightful claimants for nearly ten months. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it with a cost of ₹50,000 to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority at Ernakulam within six weeks, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated.

Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Sri R. Prasanth Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents 1 and 2: Smt Shiny Das, Advocate
For the Third Respondent: Smt M.U. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate
For Respondents 4 and 5: Sri Appu Ajith, Advocate

Case Title: Mary Help John David J & Anr. v. J.V. Anoop & Ors., WP(C) No. 28533 of 2025

[Read Judgment]