2001 (10) TMI 1043 - HC - Companies Law

High Court reaffirms litigants' right to negotiate advocate fees, distinguishing court costs.

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Advocates Association of Andhra Pradesh Versus Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging banks' circulars on advocate fees for cases before Debts Recovery Tribunals, affirming that the High ... Debt Recovery Tribunal Issues:1. Jurisdiction of High Court to fix advocate fees for cases before Debts Recovery Tribunals.2. Prerogative of litigants to negotiate advocate fees.3. Interpretation of A.P. Advocates Fee Rules, 1990 and relevant legal provisions.Issue 1: The petition challenges circulars issued by banks prescribing advocate fees for cases before Debts Recovery Tribunals, contending that it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and relevant legal provisions. The petitioners argue that the High Court's Advocates Fee Rules should govern advocate fees, not circulars issued by banks. The Tribunal had adopted the fee rules framed by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, suggesting that the banks had no authority to fix fee structures.Issue 2: The central question is whether litigants have the prerogative to negotiate advocate fees for court matters or if the High Court has the power to determine such fees. The respondents, representing banks, assert that it is within their rights as litigants to fix advocate fees, with advocates having the choice to accept or refuse the fees offered. The petitioners argue that the High Court's Advocates Fee Rules, formulated under relevant legal provisions, should prevail in determining advocate fees.Issue 3: The analysis delves into the scope of the A.P. Advocates Fee Rules, 1990, framed under Article 227 and the Advocates Act. The High Court's power to regulate advocate fees is discussed under Article 227(2)(b) and Section 34(1A) of the Advocates Act. The Rules primarily govern costs against adversaries in court proceedings rather than advocate-client fee agreements. The judgment clarifies that the Rules do not intend to fix fees payable by clients to advocates. The court also references a relevant case law, distinguishing between fee fixation by banks and agreements between clients and advocates regarding sharing litigation outcomes.The judgment concludes that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal basis for the High Court fixing advocate fees payable by clients. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed, emphasizing that the High Court's Advocates Fee Rules do not govern fees payable by clients to advocates. The judgment highlights the distinction between court costs and advocate fees, ultimately dismissing the petition with no costs awarded.