Latest News

Why HDFC, ICICI, Axis Bank Chairpersons were summoned by Bar Council?


➡️ Click here to join our Whatsapp Group

The Privilege Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana has summoned the chairpersons of HDFC, ICICI, and Axis Banks in response to allegations that they instructed their panel lawyers to pay court fees from their own pockets when filing cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Chandigarh.

Violation of Advocate Act 1961

In an order dated April 9, the Privilege Committee addressed the chairpersons of all three banks, expressing concern about the alleged practice. The committee stated that if the practice is prevalent, it would be in violation of the provisions of the Advocate Act 1961, particularly Section 30, which outlines the privileges, rights, and duties of advocates. The committee further emphasized that such a practice would not only be against the interests of the common advocates, especially young advocates, but would also consolidate professional and legal work into the hands of a select few affluent advocates.

Unethical Practice and its Consequences

The Privilege Committee deemed the practice as unethical and warned that it could potentially limit opportunities for other capable advocates. The order was issued following a complaint lodged by the DRT Bar Association with the Bar Council, urging action against the banks to stop the unethical practice.

Complaint by the DRT Bar Association

The DRT Bar Association contended that the court fees demanded by the banks were exorbitant, making it unaffordable for ordinary lawyers. They also argued that banks or their officers were not authorized to require their empaneled advocates to pay court fees from their own funds when filing cases before the DRT. Additionally, the association claimed that this practice violated the Privileges, Rights, and Duties of Advocates as outlined in the Advocates Act, 1961.

Non-Compliance and Further Action

The Privilege Committee warned that non-cooperation or non-compliance with the order would lead to the inference that unethical practices were indeed occurring. It stated that such non-compliance would be considered an admission on the part of the banks. The committee concluded by stating that further action would be taken in the absence of compliance, in accordance with the law. Notice of the order was directed to be served upon the noticees through electronic means as well as registered post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home
Calculators
Menu
Search