C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIANversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA

                          C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN                                      A
                                       v.
                              STATE BANK OF INDIA

                                NOVEMBER 21, 1996

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                                B

             Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

            Or. 3. R. 4(2)-{:hange of advocate-Application for-Advocate work-
     ing against interests of client-Client asking for "No objection Certificate" to   C
     engage another counsel-Advocate insisting on payment of fee and refusing
     to give consent-Application for change of advocate with leave of
     Court-Held, courts below were right in holding that advocate was not entitled
     to fee as a matter of right-Counsel cannot insist on fees as a condition to
     give consent-Conduct of Counsel led to loss of confidence in him by
     client-Client entitled to change the counsel-Appellant advocate is directed       D
     to give unconditional consent to change the counsel-Respondent client
     would pay over to the appellant one fourth of the scheduled fees under Tamil
     Nadu Legal Practitioners' Fees Rules 1973; Practice and Procedure; Civil
..   Rules of Practice and Circular Orders (Vol. I) (as applicable in Tamil
     Nadu~R. 20-A; Tamil Nadu Legal Practitioners' Fees Rule, 1973.
                                                                                       E
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15418 of
     1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.96 of the Madras High
     Court in C.R.P. No. 711 of 1996.
                                                                                       F
             F.S. Nariman, Ashok Sagar and Ms. Punita Singh for the Appellant.

             R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :



-            Leave granted.

             We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

            The appellant is an Advocate, appearing for the State Bank of India
                                                                                       G




     as its counsel, he filed the suit, viz., O.S. No. 8/1985 on the file of Sub- H
                                           67
    68                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Court, Coimbatore to recover a sum of Rs. 2.42 crores and odd against
    RMT Drill (P) Ltd. and its partners. It is not in dispute that the appellant
    had issued a Public notice in which he had claimed that C. V. Ramaswami
    son of Venkatasubba Naidu and others had lost the title deeds and that
    they intended to alienate the land described in the original sale deed No.
    669 dated February 21, 1972 and invited objections. It is not in dispute that
B   Ihe said persons had hypothecated the properties covered by the sale deed
    with the respondent-Bank and had deposited the title deeds with the
    respondents and that the appellant had knowledge of it as counsel of the
    Bank having been engaged in that title suit with the Bank. Obviously,
    therefore, after going through the publication, the respondents lost con-
c   fidence in the appellant who had acted against the interest of the Bank.
    So, the officers had asked him to give "No Objection Certificate" so as to
    enable them to engage another Counsel. Though they were right in saying
    that he was not diligently appearing on behalf of the Bank in the suit,
    without imputing motives to the appellant, he had taken advantage of it.
D   That led the appellant to claim his fees. He insisted that until the fees are
    paid he would decline to appear and refuse to give consent necessitating
    the Bank to file petition to revoke power and permission to engage another
    counsel.

          It would appear that he also insisted upon an apology from the
E officer by writing the letter. In the circumstances stated above, the officer
  rightly had not given any apology. The question is : whether the Court
  should have given a conditional leave to the counsel to appear on behalf
  of the respondent-Bank for conducting the suit. Shri F.S. Nariman, learned
  senior counsel for the appellant contended that under Order lll, Rule 4(2),
F CPC read with Rule 20-A of the Civil Rules of Practice it is open to the
  parties either to change the counsel or engage a new counsel with the
  consent or with the leave of the Court. Until the leave is granted, the
  consent \Vho entered appearance on behalf of the parties is entitled to
  remain on record. As a condition for his withdrawal from record and giving
  consent to another counsel to appear on behalf of the respondent-Bank,
G the appellant is entitled to insist upon payment of the fees. That was not
  acceded to by the trial Court and in the revision the High Court in the
  impugned order in CRP No. 711/96 dated March 29, 1996 has confirmed
  the order of the Subordinate Judge. Until the proceedings are concluded
  the appellant has no right to collect the fees as a matter of course. We find
H no force in the contention of Shri Nariman. The appellant cannot insist
             C.S. VENKATASUBRAMANIANv. STA1EBANKOFINDIA                         69

    payment of fee as a condition to give consent. The conduct of the counsel A
    led to loss of confidence in him by the respondent. Therefore, the respon-
    dent-Bank is entitled to change the counsel. But in view of the facts and

-   circumstances that the respondent had lost faith and confidence in the
    appellant to the successful •conduct of the suit, they necessarily had to
    change the Acivocate and the appellant had wrongly refused to give con-
                                                                                B
    sent. The Court was right that he is not entitled to payment of the fees as
    a matter of right. The appellant cannot insist upon the payment of the fees
    until the proceedings are concluded. He may be left free to recover the
    same from the respondent.

          However, we think that in view of the fact that admittedly the              C
    appellant had done the work till the settlement of the issues and also he
    led the evidence on behalf of the Bank partly and that the trial of the suit
    on behalf of the Bank was partly concluded, on the facts and circumstances,
    we think that one- fourth of the scheduled fees under the Tamil Nadu Legal
    Practitioners' Fees Rules, 1973 may be just and proper. Therefore, the
    respondent is directed to give unconditional consent to engage the Advo-          D
    catc. Equally, t.he respondent is directed lo pay over one-fourth of the
    scheduled fees to the appellant. It is not a pre-condition to give his consent.
    We have adopted this course to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

           The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
                                                                                      E
    R.P.                                                     Appeal disposed of.