R.D. Saxena v.

Balram Prasad Sharma

AIR 2000 SC 3049

1. That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the courts at Bhopal, enrolled as a legal
practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh.

2. That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd
in 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years. He
was also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.

3. That, on 17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested him
to return all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant
forwarded a consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance
payable by the Bank towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed the
Bank that the files would be returned only after settling his dues.

4. That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing Director of the Bank, before the State Bar
Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was alleged in the complaint that appellant was
guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the files to his client.

5. That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he admitted that the
files were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files by exercising his
right of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.

6. That the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar Council.
After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred to
the Bar Council of India. After holding inquiry the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct.

7. Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

ISSUE

• Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his
client?
JUDGMENT

The two Judge bench of K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ. dismissed the appeal holding that a
lawyer does not have a right to lien with respect to case files and papers of the client, wherein an
Advocate has other remedies to claim his remuneration.

REASONS

Case Files do not amount to goods

Files containing copies of the records cannot be equated with the “goods” referred to in the
Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The word "goods" mentioned in Section 171 is to be
understood in the sense in which that word is defined in the Sales of Goods Act. Thus understood
"goods" to fall within the purview of Section 171 of the Contract Act should have marketability
and the person to whom it is bailed should be in a position to dispose it of in consideration of
money. In other words the goods referred to in Section 171 of the Contract Act are saleable
goods. There is no scope for converting the case files into money, nor can they be sold to any
third party.

This Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.1 held that to
become "goods" an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the markets to be
bought and sold. In Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd.2 it
was stated that goods are understood to mean as identifiable articles known in the markets as
goods and marketed and marketable in the market as such.

Bailment

K. Thomas: The advocate keeping the files cannot amount to “goods bailed”. The word bailment
is defined in Section 148 of the Contract Act as the delivery of goods by one person to another
for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall be returned or otherwise disposed of according
to the directions of the person delivering them, when the purpose is accomplished. In the case of
litigation papers in the hands of the advocate there is neither delivery of goods nor any contract
that they shall be returned or otherwise disposed of.

1
MANU/SC/0245/1962
2
MANU/SC/0330/1990
R. P. Sethi: It is the duty of a solicitor, when called upon by his client, to deliver him the
documents in his charge. The solicitor is subject to the ordinary law of bailee of clients's papers
in his possession. The bailment is a bailment at will which, depending upon the circumstances,
may be gratuitous or for reward. In either case the bailee-solicitor is under a duty to redeliver,
upon demand, the client's papers certainly within the period during which a solicitor may be
regarded as owing a duty not to destroy papers having regard to the Limitations of Actions Act,
1958.

English Law on Lawyer’s Right to lien

In England the solicitor had a right to retain any deed, paper or chattel which has come into his
possession during the course of his employment such as bill of exchange, application of shares,
share certificates, a debenture trust deed, a policy of assurance, letters of administration or
money. It was the position in common law and it later recognized as the solicitor's right under
Solicitors Act, 1860. In Halsbury's Laws of England, it is stated that at common law a solicitor
has two rights which are termed liens. The first is a right to retain property already in his
possession until he is paid costs due to him in his professional capacity, and the second is a
right to ask the Court to direct that personal property recovered under a judgment
obtained by his exertions stand as security for his costs of such recovery. In addition, a
solicitor has by statute a right to apply to the Court for a charging order on property
recovered or preserved through his instrumentality in respect of his taxed costs of the suit,
matter or proceeding prosecuted or defended by him. The retaining lien is founded on the
general law of lien which springs from possession and is governed by the same rules as other
cases of possessory lien.

In Halsbury Law of England, it is stated that lien does not extend to (a) a client's original will; or
(b)a deed in favour of the solicitor but reserving a life interest and power of revocation to the
client; or (c) original court records; or (d) documents which did not come into the solicitor's
hands in his capacity as solicitor for the person against whom the lien is claimed or his successor,
but as mortgagee, steward of a manor or trustee. Moreover, where documents are delivered to a
solicitor for a particular purpose under a special agreement which does not make express
provision for a lien in favour of the solicitor, as perhaps the raising of money, or money is paid to
the solicitor for a particular purpose so that he becomes a trustee of the money, no lien arises over
those documents or that money unless subsequently left in the solicitors's possession for general
purposes. Otherwise the lien extends to the property whatever the occasion of delivery, except
that where a solicitor acts for both mortgagor and mortgagee and the mortgage is redeemed, the
solicitor cannot set up a lien on the deeds against the mortgagor.

Where documents are delivered by a client to a solicitor for a specific purpose, then no lien is
created unless there is an agreement to the contrary. To attract the solicitors's lien on a document
of his client, it has to be specifically shown that the client had agreed with respect to the creation
of lien upon the document in case of his failure to pay the solicitor's fee.

Views of High Courts before 1947

In P. Krishnamachariar v. The Official Assignee of Madras3 a Division Bench held that an

The Bombay High Court in Tyabji Dayabhai & Co. v. Jetha Devji & Co4 followed the English
Law relating to the solicitors lien.

A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in In re B.N. Advocate5 held the view that an advocate
could not claim a right to retain the certified copy of the judgment obtained by him on the
premise that an appeal was to be filed against it. Of course the Bench said that if the client had
specifically instructed him to do so it is open to him to keep it.

Lien Post 1947

After independence the position changed after enactment of the Advocates Act 1961 which has
repealed a host of enactments including Indian Bar Council Act. When the new Bar Council of
India came into existence it framed Rules called the Bar Council of India Rules as empowered by
the Advocates Act. Such Rules contain provision specifically prohibiting an advocate from
adjusting the fees payable to him by a client against his own personal liability to the client. As a
rule an Advocate shall not do anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
3
AIR 1932 Madras 256
4
MANU/MH/0227/1927
5
AIR 1933 Pat 571
reposed in him by his client(rule 24). Rules 28 and 29 relate settlement of unpaid fees, providing
a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the client remaining in his hand at
the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was engaged. But, it is important to
notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him.

Case Proceedings more Important

The Court observed that the cause in a Court/Tribunal is far more important than the right of the
legal practitioner for his remuneration in respect of the services rendered for espousing the cause
on behalf of the litigant. If a need arises for the litigant to change his Counsel pendente lite, that
which is more important should have its even course flowed unimpeded. Retention of records for
the unpaid remuneration of the advocate would impede such course and the cause pending
judicial disposal would be badly impaired.

Freedom of Choice

A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged
by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the
interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. It would be a professional requirement
consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client.

In civil cases, the appointment of an advocate by a party would be deemed to be in force until it
is determined with the leave of the Court, (vide Order 3, Rule 4(1) of the CPC). In criminal
cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors.6 the Court held that the words
"of his choice" in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom
he once engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the
case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the
client.

Client’s Right vis a vis Lawyer’s Duty

6
MANU/SC/0271/1966
A lawyer has a duty to return the files to his client on being discharged, the litigant too has a right
to have the files returned to him, more so when the remaining part of the lis has to be fought in
the Court. This right of the litigant is to be read as the corresponding counterpart of the
professional duty of the advocate. The party has the right to get the papers from the advocate
whom he has changed so that the new Counsel can be briefed by him effectively. In either case it
is impermissible for the erstwhile Counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise that fees is yet
to be paid.

Professional Misconduct

Misconduct envisaged in Section 35 of the Advocates Act is not defined. The Section uses the
expression "misconduct, professional or otherwise". It literally means wrong conduct or improper
conduct.

Court referred to definition given by Darling, J., in In re A Solicitor ex parte the Law Society7
that when it is shown that an advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done something with
regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his
professional brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to say that he is guilty of
professional misconduct. This was approved by the Privy Council in George Frier Grahame v.
Attorney-General Fiji8.

The Court held that the refusal to return the files to the client when he demanded the same
amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act by the appellant.

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

In the case of Bijli Sahib v Dadhamia Bhalambai , Justice Venkatasubba Rao said that he did not
propose to decide finally whether a legal practioner in India has the right of possessory lien. In
the case of P. Krishnamachariar v. The Official Assignee of Madras a Division Bench held that
an advocate could not have such a lien unless there was an express agreement to the contrary.

The present case was referred to in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Saxena9
wherein the Court followed it unaltered wherein it observed that that advocates have no lien over

7
(1912)1 KB 302
8
1936 PC 224
9
MANU/SC/0913/2003
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.

It is humbly submitted that with regards to the professional duty and conduct the rejection of a
lawyer’s right to lien is justified however, it is submitted that application of definition of goods
as interpreted under Section 2(7) Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to the word “goods” used in Section
171 of Indian Contract Act, 1972 is incorrect. It is submitted that the definition of goods in Sale
of goods act requires three features as per TCS v. UOI, that is (a) its utility; (b) capable of being
bought and sold; and (c) capable of transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored and possessed.
However, this is with respect to goods to which the Sale of Goods Act applies. But in the present
case, there is no sale of goods, the contract or the relationship between the lawyer and the client
is not governed by sale of goods. Hence, the definition of goods under SOGA should not be used
because if we restrict the meaning of goods to the definition in SOGA then any movable property
incapable of being sold or resold is not goods which is contrary to the general meaning of the
term. Further, the contract in the present case is that of service and not of sale. Hence, the
definition of goods should not be used to interpret goods under Section 171 of Indian Contract
Act, 1872.