Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

Advocate Rights and Fee Recovery Cases

The document discusses three significant legal cases regarding the rights of advocates. It highlights the recognition of advocates' rights to sue for fees, the classification of fee recovery disputes as non-commercial, and the Supreme Court's ruling that advocates are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act for alleged deficiencies in service. These rulings emphasize the unique nature of the legal profession and its responsibilities within the justice system.

Uploaded by

pravinsharma13
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views2 pages

Advocate Rights and Fee Recovery Cases

The document discusses three significant legal cases regarding the rights of advocates. It highlights the recognition of advocates' rights to sue for fees, the classification of fee recovery disputes as non-commercial, and the Supreme Court's ruling that advocates are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act for alleged deficiencies in service. These rulings emphasize the unique nature of the legal profession and its responsibilities within the justice system.

Uploaded by

pravinsharma13
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ADVOCATES RIGHTS

CASE 1
The judgment of Rama v. Kunji[1] of the year 1886 for the first time recognised
the right of the legal practitioner to sue for the fee. It was ruled that the provisions
of the Legal Practitioners' Act do not debar a pleader from recovering a fee from
his client when no contract, in writing, was made.

CASE 2
Can a professional fees recovery dispute between a Lawyer/Advocate and his client
be held to be a ‘commercial dispute’ under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015? – Atmastco Ltd. Vs. Mandeep Kalra – Delhi High Court
July 9, 2024
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: (i) The dispute between a lawyer and his
client where the former is seeking recovery of professional fees, cannot be held to
be a ‘commercial dispute’. Lawyers are not ‘tradesmen’ or ‘businessmen’.
Lawyers and advocates are supposed to be professional legal experts and major
stakeholders in the “adversarial justice delivery system” who render legal advice
& services to their clients but have larger duties as officers of the Court whenever
they are engaged for providing legal representation to their clients in the Courts of
law. (ii) The agreement between an advocate and his/her client envisaging
provisions of legal advice and services cannot be in the nature of a ‘commercial
dispute’ since such agreement cannot even be specifically enforced. The Legal
Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any
other profession.

CASE 3

An important question on whether advocates are liable for alleged deficiency in


services under the Indian Consumer Protection Act has been put to rest by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS
National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.[1],has held that
advocates would not be covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (“CPA 1986”), as re-enacted by the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“CPA
2019”) (‘collectively referred as Acts/ consumer law framework’). Until the said
decision, there was no definite pronouncement on the concerned issue.
The Apex Court, through this judgment, has shed light on this matter and has held
that advocates cannot be made liable under the consumer protection laws
framework for alleged deficiency in services. The Court delved into the objective
behind enacting the laws, while highlighting the sui generis nature of the
profession. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) decision in D.K. Gandhi
PS v M. Mathias[2], wherein it was ruled that if there was any deficiency in the
services rendered by the lawyers, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, would be maintainable.

You might also like