Prasoon Kumar Mishra

(Whether the advocate can have a lien on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his clients for pending fees?) FACT OF THE CASE:- The appellant was appointed as a legal advisor to the  Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.  (herein referred to as  ‘Bank’ ) in 1990. He used to conduct cases on behalf of the said bank. Subsequently, on 17.7.1993 the bank terminated the retainers of the appellant; and requested him to return his files related to the bank. Instead of returning the files, he informed the bank that only after dues amounting to rupees 97,100/- were paid will he return the files. Hence, the Bank filed a complaint before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 3.2.1994. BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH:-   wherein the appellant contended that he has a right of lien on those files; whereas the respondent contended that the appellant is guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the files to his client. Subsequently, the matter got transf...

                           (Supreme Court of India)      Civil Appeal No.3185 of 1999/ 31.8.2000 Equivalent citations: 2000(7)SCALE 610, (2000) 9 SCC 545. Bench: S.Bharucha, S S Quadri, N S Hegde.   FACT OF THE CASE:- When the matter reached hearing, the court (supreme court) were informed by a learned advocate that Mr. P.S.Mishra was appearing for the appellant and that he was on his legs in another court, and he sought a pass over. Then the court asked where the appellants advocate-on-record was. The the court were told that he was coming. So court waited, during which time the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the first respondent, presented facts of the case before the court. The same advocate, who had said that the advocate-on-record was coming, now appeared again and said that the advocate-on-record was taking medicines and was coming. It is because of that the court con...

  (Case regarding boycotting a particular court) Date of Judgement: 13.11.1998.    Bench:   S.Saghir Ahmad,   K.T.Thomas.     Judgement: Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial   functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court.    It all happened in the...

                        FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of   Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Co...