The High Court of Kerala has dismissed a writ petition filed by two advocates who sought to stall execution proceedings of a land acquisition award until their professional fees were settled by their former clients. Terming the conduct “pernicious,” the Court held that an advocate has no lien over case bundles or legal proceedings and cannot blackmail litigants into paying demanded fees by halting progress in a case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the petition, imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner-advocates, observing that the legal profession is a noble one and its members cannot be permitted to act against the interests of their erstwhile clients.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Mary Help John David J. and K.V. Krishnakumar, are practicing advocates. They alleged that the first petitioner had been conducting the case for claimants (Respondents 4 and 5) in a land acquisition reference (LAR No. 302/1988) since 2004. According to the petitioners, after an award was passed, an execution petition (E.P. No. 140/2013) was filed.
Differences arose regarding advocate fees after the State Government deposited the first installment of the award. The petitioners claimed that the claimants collected prepared cheque applications but subsequently submitted them through new advocates (Respondents 1 and 2) without obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC). The petitioners then approached the High Court seeking to declare the appointment of new advocates invalid and to maintain status quo on the execution proceedings until their fee dispute was adjudicated.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners argued that the new advocates played a “fraud” by filing vakalath without an NOC. They contended that compelling them to approach a civil court for fee recovery was “unethical” and amounted to “looting” their hard-earned efforts of over two decades.
The first and second respondents (New Advocates) filed a counter-affidavit stating that the claimants had lost confidence in the petitioners. They argued that a litigant has an unfettered right to revoke a vakalath and engage new counsel, and that fee disputes cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The fourth and fifth respondents (Claimants) asserted that they had already paid over ₹25,00,000 to the first petitioner. They alleged that the first petitioner started “illegally demanding” an additional one crore rupees and harassed them, threatening to stop all steps in the case unless the amount was paid. They stated they were compelled to seek new counsel due to this “harassment and illegal demands.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court observed that while an advocate deserves fair compensation, a dispute over fees with a private litigant is not justiciable under Article 226 and must be agitated before a competent civil court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made several key observations regarding professional ethics:
- On Halting Proceedings: “An advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled… An Advocate has no lien over the case bundles or the proceedings.”
- On Professional Conduct: “There cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be a situation where the litigant is pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying the fee demanded by the Advocate.”
- On Fiduciary Duty: The Court noted that the relationship is one of “utmost trust and faith.” It stated, “Such duty though terminated by the relinquishment of the engagement or its termination, the Advocate cannot be permitted to turn around and act against the interests of an erstwhile client.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma [(2000) 7 SCC 264], emphasizing that a litigant must have the freedom to change their advocate if they feel the counsel is not capable or their conduct is prejudicial.
Regarding the change of counsel without an NOC, the Court referred to Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice in Kerala, noting that if an advocate refuses consent, a party is entitled to obtain special permission from the court to engage another advocate.
The Decision
The Court found the petition to be without merit and expressed disturbance that two members of the legal profession had “successfully stalled the disbursement of the decretal amount to the rightful claimants for almost ten months.”
The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹50,000, to be paid by the petitioners to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KEA) within six weeks.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mary Help John David J. & Anr. vs. J.V. Anoop & Ors.
- Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 28533 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
- Date: April 08, 2026
