Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 6 (KAR)

G. N. VISHWANATHAPPA v. CANARA BANK

2003-01-02

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2003
K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) SRI Rukkoji Rao is directed to take notice for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this case was retained by the respondent-Bank as their counsel. The petitioner prepared the plaint and filed it before the trial Court. At the time of filing 50% of the scheduled fee and other expenses was paid by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner. Before the conclusion of the trial, the respondent-Bank made an application before the Court for terminating the vakalath of the petitioner in this case. The trial Court granted the request. However on the question of the advocate's fee, directed that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th of the scheduled fee and directed return of the balance of excess received from the bank. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) THE trial Court has relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in C. S. Venkatasubramanian v. State Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2329 . In the said decision, the counsel whose vakalath was terminated had conducted the case up to the stage of recording of evidence in part. Taking into consideration the services rendered, the Supreme Court directed that 1/4th of the scheduled fee is to be payable by the Bank to the counsel. Based on the said ratio, the trial Court has also directed in this case for payment of only 1/4th of the scheduled fee. ( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioners produced the circulars of instructions issued by Canara Bank dated 14-7-1999 which deals with the payment of advocate fee and the Court-fee. Clause (m) of the instructions read thus :m) Withdrawal of suits from advocates and entrusting to another advocate fee payable thereon : when pending suit is withdrawn from an advocate for any reason and entrusted to another advocate, the entire/fresh (100%) scheduled fee cannot be paid for the same suit to the new advocate, as Courts will not award costs incurred in respect of both the advocate's fee and Court will grant only one fee and also the previous advocate might have taken certain steps in the said suit. Hence, branches are requested specifically to inform the same to the other new advocate while entrusting a pending suit. Hence, branches are requested specifically to inform the same to the other new advocate while entrusting a pending suit. However, as a special case, we may pay maximum of 75% of scheduled fee to the new/other advocate, apart from the part of the fee i. e. , 50% already paid to the previous the fee prescribed i. e. , 25% has to be debited to general charges. The principle applicable to EPs also. " the circular instructions of the Canara Bank are binding on the bank. The counsel who enters into a contract with the Bank to render legal services as their retainer is also to be bound by the circular instructions as a matter of inference unless there is a specific contract to the contrary. Under the circular instructions, without keeping the distinction between the different stages of the proceedings in a suit, the Bank directs that 50% of the scheduled fee should be payable to the previous counsel and for the new counsel, the balance of 50% is to be payable if the nature of work in the case so warrants that further fee is to be payable then for new counsel 75% of the scheduled fee could be paid but however excess of 25% is to be accounted under the general charges and not towards the advocate fee since the Courts allow one set of advocate's fee. ( 5 ) IN the decision of the Supreme Court only as a working solution, a direction was issued to pay 1/4th of the scheduled fee but however, in the present case there are clear guidelines in the circular instructions which binds the parties. In that view, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the scheduled fee. It is said that 50% is already paid. Therefore there is no liability on the bank to pay any remuneration to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .