Critical Analysis Of General Lien For Advocates In India As Against The United Kingdom
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 9
- 2 min read
Nikita Karen, Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
This paper gives a detailed analysis of India's stance on Advocate's lien under section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 by comparing the law in the United Kingdom, based on whose law the statutory provision the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is drafted. An Advocate lien is the right of the advocate to retain the client's property until such time that the client has paid his fees or any payment due to the advocates and England both being a common law country have different stance on this concept. while United Kingdom recognizes a general lien for Advocates to recover their unpaid fees, India has taken a more restrictive approach.
The legal history of India through case laws from P. Krishnamachariar V. Official Assignee of Madras, 1931 to R.D. Saxena V. Balram Prasad Sharma, 2000 shows how India gradually becomes more and more restrictive towards allowing a general lieu for advocates. In R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma the court finally held that Advocates do not have the right to retain case files as a form of general lien under section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and stated that the Advocates must resort to legal proceedings to recover the unpaid fees from their client. This paper critically analysis if the remedies available for the Advocates in India is sufficient. Further, this paper also explores the stance of United Kingdom regarding its stance on Solicitor's lien to cluck if any of the remedies available in the UK can be adopted in India. The paper ultimately questions if India should reconsider its position on the same so as to balance the rights of the Advocates and their clients equally.
