Case Briefing

CASE SUMMARY
B Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017
SUBMITTED BY:
SRI BALAJI.M
(17040142024)
B.A.LL.B
BATCH OF 2017-2021
SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA
School of Law Alliance

University, Bangalore
Date of Submission: 02.12.2021.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, I came across a case where the quantum of advocate’s fees has been challenged
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Now-a-days the advocate’s fees is increasing
exponentially. The facts of the case were the appellant filed for compensation in the
Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal for the death of her husband. She got the compensation.
She hired an advocate who helped him in getting the same. It was agreed between the
appellant and the advocate that the fees for his services would depend on the decretal
amount. She gave around 10 lakhs as fees to the advocate for his professional conduct.
But later on the advocate made the appellant sign a cheque of 3 lakhs despite of the
opposition by the appellant. The appellant did not have sufficient funds in her account,
hence, she refused. Again the advocate asked for 16% of the decretal amount. The cheque
got bounced and the advocate filed complaint in the High Court of Telangana under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
In the High Court, the advocate argued that he had to engage services of other senior
advocates and paid huge amount for their services at various courts including the
Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the debt is not legally enforceable. The
signature of the appellant was taken under undue influence. The advocate is in fiduciary
relationship with the client. But he took the advantage of the inability of the client to pay
the fees. The fee claimed by the respondent was against the A.P. Adovcates’ Fee Rules,
2010 of Subordinate Courts. The claim of the respondent was against ethics and public
policy and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act.
But the High Court termed the above rules as mere guidance and stated that they is no
statutory cap mentioned in the fees charged by the advocates, thereby, ruled in favour of
the advocate. After that, the client went to Apex Court under the Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 i.e. Special Leave Petition. The Hon’ble Court relied on
precedents to come to the inference that no presumption could arise merely by issuance
of a cheque that amount stipulated in the cheque was payable towards fee. In absence of
independent proof, issuance of cheque could not furnish cause of action under Section
138 of the Act in the context of an advocate or client. It held that making the fees
conditional on the success of the case is undermining the status of the legal profession.
Mere issuance of cheque by the client may not debar him from contesting the liability. If
liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract.
Rule 20 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section

CASE DETAILS
B Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIN CRIMINAL APPELLA JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2068 OF 2017

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10700 OF
2015)
B. SUNITHA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELENGANA & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
Issue Raised
1. Whether fee can be determined with reference to percentage of the decretal

amount?
2. Whether the determination of fee can be unilateral and if the client disputes the
quantum of fee whether the burden to prove the contract of fee will be on the
advocate or the client?
3. Whether the professional ethics require regulation of exploitation in the matter of

fee?
Facts
In July, 1998, B. Sunitha’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) husband died in

a motor accident. A claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘MACT’) was filed wherein one of the Respondents in the present
case was the advocate for the Appellant. Compensation was also given in the said
cas The Respondent charged a fee of INR 10 Lakhs (USD 15590 approx.). Later on,
the Appellant was forced to sign another cheque worth INR 3 Lakhs (USD 4677
approx.) on October 25, 2014, despite her informing that she has no funds in the
account On November 2, 2014, the Appellant received an e-mail from the
Respondent wherein it was claimed that the fees of the Respondent was 16% of the
amount received by the Appellant. On December 11, 2014, a complaint was filed
before the Hyderabad High Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, stating inter alia that the cheque which was issued in discharge of liability
having been returned unpaid for want of funds, the appellant committed the offence
for which she was liable to be punished. The High Court summoned the Appellant to
which she stated that there was no legally enforceable debt and the fee was an
unreasonable amount and against the law. It was contended that the claim violated
the Advocates Fee Rules and Ethics as fee could not be demanded on percentage of
amount awarded as compensation to the Appellant.The Respondent opposed this
contention by stating that the professional fee was agreed upon by the Appellant
and now having availed his professional services, she could not contest the claim for
fee. It was further contended that Senior Advocates were engaged in the case by the
Respondent and paid huge amount for their services. It was further argued by the
Appellant that the fee claimed was against Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Fee Rules,
2010 of Subordinate Courts, ethics and public policy and hit by Section 23 of the
Contract Act. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition. It was stated by the
High Court that Advocates’ Fee Rules are only for guidance and there was no bar to
fee being claimed beyond what is fixed under the Rules.
CONDITIONS OF APPELLANT
It was contended that the charging percentage of decretal amount by an advocate is

hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act, being against professional ethics and public
policy. Thus, the cheque issued by the Appellant could not be treated as being in
discharge of any liability by the Appellant.
It was also contended that it is a settled law that any fees claim made by the
advocate based on the percentage of the amount received as a result of litigation is
illegal.
The Appellant claimed that the signing of the cheque was an exploitation of the
fiduciary relationship of the Advocate and the client.
Judgements such as In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court
((1955) 1 SCR 490 at 494), R.D. Saxena versus Balram Prasad Sharma ((2000) 7 SCC
264), V.C. Rangadurai versus D. Gopalan ((1979) 1 SCC 308) were produced to
support the claim.
CONDITION OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent No. 2 supported the order of the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad. .
It was contended that there was no legal bar to claim professional fee by the
Respondent. Further, it was stated that since the cheque was dishonored, the
statutory presumption was in the favor of Respondent.
It was claimed that the Appellant made out no ground for quashing the petition.
JUDGEMENTS
While discussing about Professional Misconduct and whether the fees could be
charged as a part of the decretal amount, the Court took into consideration certain
judgements -
Re: KL Gauba[1], wherein it was held that the fees conditional on the success of a
case and which gives the lawyer an interest in the subject matter tends to undermine
the status of the profession. The same has always been condemned as unworthy of
the legal profession. If an advocate has interest in the success of the litigation, he
may tend to depart from ethics.
In the matter of Mr. G.: A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court[2], it was held that
the claim of an advocate based on a share in the subject matter is a professional
misconduct.
In VC Rangadurai versus D. Gopalan[3], it was observed that relation between a
lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. The advocate is in the position of
trust.
Thus, the Court was of the view that the application of the Respondent deserves to
be quashed as it was against the public policy and a grave professional misconduct.
Further, it was stated by the Court that Respondent no. 2 prayed to withdraw the
complaint to which it was replied that ‘Having committed a serious professional
misconduct, the Respondent No.2 could not be allowed to avoid the adverse
consequences which he may suffer for his professional misconduct’.
Talking about the importance of the legal profession the Court stated that
‘Undoubtedly, the legal profession is the major component of the justice delivery
system and has a significant role to play in upholding the rule of law. Significance of
the profession is on account of its role in providing access to justice and assisting
the citizens in securing their fundamental and other rights.’ The Court was of the
view that it is the fundamental right of the poor to get justice and the exorbitant
amount charged as fees by the Advocates is serious violation of this right.
Further, the observations made in the 131st Report of the Law Commission, 1988,
were brought to light. These were:
Role of the legal profession in strengthening the administration of justice must be in

consonance with the mandate of Article 39A to ensure equal opportunity for access
to justice.
It was observed that like public hospitals for medical services, the public sector
should have a role in providing legal services for those who cannot afford fee.
Referring to the lawyers’ fee as barrier to access to justice, it was observed that it
was the duty of the Parliament to prescribe fee for services rendered by members of
the legal profession. First step should be taken to prescribe floor and ceiling in fees.
Also, it was highlighted that ‘Mandate for the Bench and the Bar is to provide speedy
and inexpensive justice to the victim of justice and to protect their rights. The legal
system must continue to serve the victims of injustice.’
Focusing on the sleeping nature of the system, the Court pointed out that though the
131st Law Commission Report was submitted in the year 1988, still no step is taken
in the last 29 years.

Case Briefing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Briefing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE SUMMARY

B Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017

School of Law Alliance

Rule 20 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section

B Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIN CRIMINAL APPELLA JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2068 OF 2017

1. Whether fee can be determined with reference to percentage of the decretal

3. Whether the professional ethics require regulation of exploitation in the matter of

In July, 1998, B. Sunitha’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) husband died in

It was contended that the charging percentage of decretal amount by an advocate is

Role of the legal profession in strengthening the administration of justice must be in

You might also like