1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Sales of Goods Act

R.D. SAXENA V. BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA (2000) 7 SCC 264

R.D. SAXENA V. BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA (2000) 7 SCC 264

FACTS

  • The appellant, an advocate, was engaged by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. as its legal advisor and to handle cases where the Bank was a party.
  • The Bank terminated the appellant's retainer agreement and requested the return of all case files related to the Bank.
  • Instead of returning the files, the appellant forwarded a consolidated bill to the Bank for legal remuneration and stated that he would only return the files after settling his dues.

ISSUE

  • Whether an advocate has a lien on the litigation papers entrusted to him by the client for the purpose of securing unpaid fees.

JUDGEMENT

  • The court held that an advocate does not have a lien on litigation papers for unpaid fees.It emphasised that the files are necessary for the further progress of the case and the client's right to change counsel must not be impeded.
  • The court reprimanded the appellant for withholding the files but altered the punishment to a reprimand, warning that future violations would result in more severe punishment.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

  • The court examined Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with liens, and concluded that litigation papers do not qualify as "goods" under the Act.
  • It referenced English law, stating that even under common law, no lien can be claimed with respect to case files necessary for the progression of the case.
  • The judgement highlighted the importance of allowing clients the freedom to change counsel without hindrance, and emphasised the duty of advocates to uphold the standards of the legal profession.
  • The court underscored that advocates have legal remedies to recover unpaid fees but withholding case files from clients is impermissible and can result in disciplinary action.

COMMENTARIES RATIO

  • The Supreme Court has laid down in R.D. Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma that advocates have no right of lien over clients' papers for their unpaid fee. The Court said that files containing copies of the records  (perhaps some original documents also) could not be equated with the word "goods" referred to in Section 171.