Question

The Supreme Court has held that an advocate cannot claim a lien over a litigation file entrusted to him for his fees........ no professional can be given the right to withhold the returnable records relating to the work done by him with his clients matter on the strength of any claim for unpaid remuneration. The alternative is the professional concerned can resort to other legal remedies for such unpaid remuneration. Refer to the specific case

• A. R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma
• B. V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan
• C. Emperor Vs. Dadu Ram
• D. G. Naranswamy Vs. Challapalli

Hint:

Remember this key ruling: An advocate's lien for fees does \textbf{not} extend to retaining the client's case files. This is considered professional misconduct. Always associate this principle with the \textit{R.D. Saxena} case.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question concerns the legal principle of an advocate's right to lien over a client's case files for non-payment of fees. A lien is a right to retain possession of another person's property until a debt owed by that person is discharged. The Supreme Court of India has clarified the position on this issue.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
In the landmark case of R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264, the Supreme Court of India conclusively held that advocates do not have a right to lien on their client's papers for unpaid fees. The Court reasoned that withholding files would amount to professional misconduct as it obstructs the administration of justice and harms the client's interests. The Court stated that an advocate's profession is a noble one, not a trade or business. While an advocate is entitled to their fees, they cannot retain the case files to coerce the client into payment. Instead, the advocate must pursue other legal remedies for the recovery of their fees, such as filing a civil suit.
The other cases mentioned are not relevant to this specific point: \begin{itemize} \item V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan deals with professional misconduct where an advocate deceived his client. \item The other options are not the primary authority for this legal proposition. \end{itemize}
Step 3: Final Answer:
The specific case that established this principle is R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma.