Recovery p flegal fee
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 11 September 2014
This query is : Resolved
Sir
I and my senior enter in to M.O.U. agreement with clients in a Land Acquisition Case.
After my senior death the client moved a petition for En-cash-ment of Fixed Deposit amount from Civil Court Deposit in a Land Acquisition case
Where the clients had a agreement with me and my senior there is a condition that at the time of reeving compensation the clients should/shall pay 10% as agreed in MOU.
But now after my senior death the clients moved a petition for :En-cash-ment of Fixed Deposit amount" with another advocate for file cheque petition.
Now with that MOU agreement what should i do to recovery (Suggest ways and sent any MODEL FORMAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS)
As well as to attach Civil Court Deposit till my legal fee discharge.
Suggest more/many ways to recovery fee and to stop execution proceedings of new advocate
Regards
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 12 September 2014
Vague query and incomplete information.
P. Venu 
(Expert) 12 September 2014
Is such agreement permissible under the provisions of the Advocates Act and professional ethics expected of legal professionals?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 12 September 2014
you cant charge 10%of actual compensation received from clients as fees . it is illegal in india . even if you take legal proceedings for recovery of 10%you wont get any reliefs from courts .
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 September 2014
agree with the expert ajay sethi ji.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 September 2014
It shall be better to personally persuade that client and his new lawyer to remit at least part of your fee otherwise you have no legal remedy to recover your fee.
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 13 September 2014
This is the MOU whether it works or not
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM
O.P.No: 528/2002
MEMORANDUM OF UNDER STANDING AGREEMENT
On this day of 5th April 2007 this memorandum of understanding is executed between:
1.) Nakkana Pentayya, S/o late Pentayya, aged 46 years, R/at D.No: 6-11-35, Ammavari Street, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam.
(2.) Nakkana Rajeswari, W/o late Jagadeesh, aged 50 years, R/at D.No: 6-11-32, Ammavari Street, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam.
(3.) Nakkanna Ramayamma, mother of late Ammaji, aged 88 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Ammavari Street, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam.
(4.) Nydana Aruna Jyothi, daughter of late Ammaji, aged 41 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Visakhapatnam.
(5.) Peethala Amarendar, Son of late Ammaji, aged 40 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Visakhapatnam.
(6.) P.V.S.S.Sreedhar, Son of late Ammaji, aged 37 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Visakhapatnam.
(7.) P.Kanaka Raveendar, Son of late Ammaji, aged 35 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Visakhapatnam.
(8.) P. Anil Kumar, Son of late Ammaji, aged 33 years, D.No: 8-30-20, Visakhapatnam.
On One part called as first party and Temple Law Firm represented by Sri. H. RAJA GOPALA RAO Law Chambers Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on the Second part called as 2nd Party.
The first party approached the 2nd party through their Counsels Sri P. Sanyasi Rao, P. Gangopadhyaya, Advocates, Visakhapatnam and requested them to accept brief relating to Land Acquisition case counsel Special leave petition No: 1990/2007 on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and to oppose the petition for condonation of delay of 197 days.
In consideration of First Party Counsels that Parties in O.P. 528/2002 are agreed to pay 10% of Total Compensation (Ten Percent) towards their service at the Court of Visakhapatnam and for their briefing advocates at Hyderabad and at Delhi.
Their fee will be paid as when we are paid compensation by the Court at Visakhapatnam besides, we the Claimants will bear the Advocates fee at Hyderabad and at Delhi.
After appeals dismissed at the time of receiving compensation the Advocates fee will paid to them. This agreement is made out of free will.
Partiers Signatures
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
P. Venu
(Expert) 13 September 2014
As a practicing lawyer, the queriest ought to be in the know that any agreement contrary to public policy is void and unenforceable.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 13 September 2014
This agreement can not be enforced. And also the client is having all such liberty to move the bar council for for professional misconduct.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 September 2014
The mentioned agreement is unexecutable being devoid of merits and lacking substances.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 September 2014
I agree with the experts opinion that this MOU is unenforceable. If they are moving through there advocate, do not sign NOC and can protest before the concerned court when the client is moving an application to replace the counsel.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 19 September 2014
I agree with experts, MOU is invalid, illegal and unenforcable.
Insist and persuade newly appointed advocate to part away with your fees. YOu may presurize him/her through some other senior local advocates of the bar.
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 19 September 2014
Even According to following citation it is applicable
Equivalent citations: 1954 CriLJ 1531
Section 52 of the Bombay Regulation II of 1827 regulated the fees to be paid to lawyers according to the rates specified in Appendix L, and this specification was in terms of the valuation of the subject-matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 allowed a lawyer to enter into a private agreement with his client for either a larger or smaller sum than the established fee.
The provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, I of 1846, imposed certain limitations in the matter of private agreements between lawyers and their clients. Section 8, for instance, provided that such private agreements shall not be enforced otherwise than by a regular suit. But the liberty to charge lees on an agreed percentage of the value of the subject-matter still continued. Certain additional limitations were imposed on such private agreements by the provisions of Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Legal Practitioners Act, XVIII of 1879.
Section 3 of this Act expressly provides that any legal practitioner who acts or agrees to act for any person may by private agreement settle with such person the terms of his engagement and the fee to be paid for his professional services. Section 4 conferred upon the legal practitioner the right to sue for his fees and Section 5 imposed upon the legal practitioner the corresponding liability to be sued by his client. Section 6 repealed Sections 28 to 31 of the Legal Practitioners Act, XVIII of 1879, and Sections 17, 19 and 28 of the Bombay Pleaders Act, XVII of 1920.
Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act recognises contingent contracts as valid, and the contract of the client with Mr. Gauba is no more than such a contingent contract. All that he has done is to undertake the work of the collection of a debt on percentage basis, and if an agreement Has been made in respect of such an undertaking, that cannot be said to be illegal or improper. This is another way in which Mr. Gauba has placed his argument before us.
Lawyers are at liberty and are indeed entitled to follow their profession. But that does not mean that in following their profession they are not subject to the rules of professional etiquette or conduct, and professional ethics or that they can disobey the rules of conduct framed by the Courts whose officers they claim to be. In our opinion, therefore, the argument based on the unfettered right of the lawyer to enter into any contract he likes with his client can be accepted subject to the important proviso that the agreement must not trespass on the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. In view of the fact that Section 23 applies to all contracts whatsoever, it was hardly necessary for the Legislature to import the same provisions while enacting Section 3 of the Legal Practitioners (Pees) Act, XXI of 1926.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 19 September 2014
This is the matter to be resolved with mutual consultation of the lawyers otherwise there is no legal remedy.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 September 2014
Well said by expert Mr. Rajkumar Makkad sir. This has no legal remedy.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 21 September 2014
The citation given above has already been ruled out many years ago.
