3.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma.
This is the case where the Supreme Court held that an advocate cannot claim a lien over a litigation file entrusted to him for his fees and that no professional can be given the right to withhold the returnable records relating to the work done by him with his client's 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.
The case was filed by Balram Prasad Sharma, the managing director of Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd., against R.D. Saxena, an advocate who was engaged by the bank as a legal advisor and counsel. The bank terminated the retainership of Saxena and requested him to return all the case files relating to the bank. Saxena refused to do so until his dues were paid by the bank. He claimed that he had a right of lien over the files under section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872. The bank filed a complaint against him before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, alleging professional misconduct. The State Bar Council imposed a punishment of debarment from practice for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on Saxena and directed him to return all the case bundles without any delay. Saxena appealed to the Bar Council of India, which dismissed his appeal. He then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the findings and order of the Bar Council of India. The court observed that litigation files (including some original documents) are not "goods bailed" or "saleable goods" within the meaning of section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872, and hence an advocate cannot have a lien over them for his fees. The court also held that such a lien would be against public policy and professional ethics, as it would obstruct the administration of justice and cause inconvenience and hardship to the client and other parties involved in the litigation. The court further held that an advocate has other legal remedies available to him for recovering his fees, such as filing a suit or initiating arbitration proceedings, and he cannot resort to self-help by withholding the files.
The court distinguished this case from V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan, where it was held that an advocate has a right to retain his client's papers until his fees are paid, subject to certain exceptions. The court clarified that in that case, the papers referred to were not litigation files but documents relating to non-litigious matters, such as conveyancing, drafting, etc., which were prepared by the advocate himself or under his instructions. The court also noted that in that case, there was no dispute between the parties regarding the amount of fees payable.
The other options are incorrect because:
- Emperor Vs. Dadu Ram was a criminal case where it was held that an accused person has a right to inspect his own case diary and other documents relating to his case in the custody of his counsel.
- G. Naranswamy Vs. Challapalli was a civil case where it was held that an advocate has no right to retain any document belonging to his client which is not connected with any litigation pending in any court or tribunal.