Advocate cannot be replaced or added without NOC
When a litigant appoints one Advocate for fighting his/her case and wishes to engage an additional Advocate or wishes to engage another Advocate in replacement of existing Advocate, the litigant is required to obtain NOC from the existing Advocate. Actually, the Court has to discharge the existing Advocate of his/her responsibility to represent his client in the case.
But some times, the clients are very tricky and with malafide intention, they pay a small amount of money to defend their case and later they change to another advocate when the existing one demands next installment of his fee.
In such situations, the Advocates must protect their rights to receive balance of the fee. If they dont do it, they cannot protect the interests of their clients too.
Under such situations a case was forwarded to us and the same is being published here below for the information of the Advocate and also the litigants.
BEFORE RECOVERY OFFICER____, DRT-3, NEW DELHI
RC NO. _______
In the matter of :
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd CH/Applicant
____________________________ & Ors CD/Defendants
OBJECTIONS AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF ANOTHER ADVOCATE WITHOUT NOC / DISCHARGE OF EXISTING ONE
The Hon’ble Sir, it is humbly submitted before you:
- That, I have been appointed Advocate to represent the CDs vide Vakalatnama already on record of this Hon’ble Court.
- That, on 11.08.2016, without any notice to me by any and without reasonable cause, I suddenly found that another Advocate in addition or in replacement of existing Advocate i.e. me, was representing the CDs before this Hon’ble Court. I have verbally made my objections at that time, before this Hon’ble Court that the representation by another Advocate may not be accepted without obtaining NOC from existing one i.e. me and without discharging me from the present case by this Hon’ble Court.
- That, Sir, the Vakalatnama was “Accepted subject to terms of the fees.” by me and the CDs are due to pay me Rs.30,000/- fee out of Rs.40,000/- settled for full case before this Hon’ble Court. That, with malafide intentions instigated by one Mr. Saurabh Bhatnagar, a CD in one of the case for recovery, the CDs have engaged another Advocate, on demand of fee by me.
- That, acceptance of another Advocate in addition or in replacement without obtaining my consent & discharge by this Hon’ble Court is breach of contract on records of terms of Vakalatnama filed before this Hon’ble Court; and is also prejudicial to my legal practice and is therefore vehemently objected by me.
PRAYER: It is humbly prayed
- That, representation of the CDs in addition or in replacement of me, should not be allowed, without consent & without discharge of the existing Advocate already on record of this Hon’ble Court.
- That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may grant, which may deem fit & proper, in the interest of equity and justice
Raminder Singh Sahota
IF THE LITIGANTS FAIL TO RESOLVE WITH THE EXISTING ADVOCATE, HE/SHE CAN FILE A CIVIL SUIT UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1961 TO CLAIM HIS DUE FEE AND ALSO DAMAGES THE CLIENTS HAVE CAUSED BY BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH THE ADVOCATE.
For further advise or assistance, you may leave a reply below