Shri. M. P. Vashi, legal crusader, has filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court being W. P. No. 632 of 2011 claiming that the provisions of the Advocates Act which permit advocates to be termed as “senior advocates” is unconstitutional on the ground that while its purpose was to encourage advocates with special knowledge & experience to use their skills for the common man, the designated counsel are using their position to defend anti-social elements who are able to afford their exorbitant fees.

The Petition points out there was earlier a norm that senior advocates would not charge more than Rs. 1,650 per matter. That norm has now been violated rues the Petition.

The Petition cites examples of several senior advocates who are charging “exorbitant fees”. Leading the list are Harish Salve & Mukul Rohatgi, who are neck-to-neck with an appearance fee of Rs. 3 lakhs and a full day of Rs. 25 lakhs. Abhishek Singhvi is not too far behind with an appearance fee of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The others in the hot-list include Satish Maneshinde, the celebrity lawyer, who is stated to have an appearance fee of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Petition claims that the only way in which the common man can avail of the services of the celebrity senior advocates is by forcing the latter to drastically cut their fees. The Petition suggests that a ceiling of Rs. 30,000 per day per appearance should be imposed on senior advocates.

The Petition is fixed for hearing in September 2011 and will undoubtedly be followed with bated breath by all senior advocates. Junior lawyers are also very apprehensive because a ceiling on the senior’s fees will result in a drastic cut in their fees as well.

A copy of the Writ Petition, uploaded by Bar & Bench, can be downloaded here.

Share your thoughts on whether you agree with Mr. M. P. Vashi’s views or not.

INSTRUCTION NO. 7 /2011 [F.NO. 279/MISC./M-42/2011-ITJ], DATED 24-5-2011

The Government has formulated the National Litigation Policy 2010, for conduct of litigation on its behalf. The policy declares:

"Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, ‘let the court decide’, must be eschewed and condemned."

2. In furtherance of the above stated policy and to achieve the ‘zero delay regime’ in matters of filing appeals and in suppression of the existing Instructions on the subject of filing of appeals to High Court, in general, and Instruction No. 1038 dated 3-2-1977; Instruction No. 1777 dated 4-11-1987; Instruction No. 1957 dated 22-12-1998; Letter Dy No. 111 /Ds (J)/2004-ITJ dated 25-3-2004; Letter No. 272/77/2007-ITJ dated 24-9-2008; Letter No. 279/Misc.l42/2008-ITJ(Pt) dated 23-10-2008; Letter No. 279/Misc/142/2008 dated 19-11-2008 and Letter No. 279/Misc/M-29/2010-ITJ dated 31-8-2010, in particular, the following Instructions are issued herewith for compliance by all concerned:

(more…)

Pursuant to a Writ Petition challenging the imposition of service tax on lawyers and the prayer seeking interim relief by way of “restraining the Respondents from giving effect to directly or indirectly or acting upon the impugned provisions or collecting any service tax on the assistance provided as an officer of the Court by an advocate“, the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide order dated 18.5.2011 has ordered “Since it is represented that the other High Courts have already granted stay in similar circumstances, there shall be interim stay, until further orders”

The sitting list and assignment of Judicial Work on the Original side of the Bombay High Court on and from Monday, the 6th June 2011 until further orders will be as under:

The Bar Association of Gauhati has filed a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High Court to challenge the levy of service-tax on “Legal Consultancy Services”. The High Court has on 29th April 2011 said the matter requires in-depth scrutiny and directed that service-tax would not be recovered till the next date of hearing being 25th May 2011.

The Delhi Bar Association has filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court being WP No. 2792 of 2011 to challenge the levy of service-tax on “Legal Consultancy Services”. The High Court has today (29th April 2011) issued notice on the Writ Petition and stayed the application of the impugned provision till the next date of hearing being 23rd May 2011.

INSTRUCTION NO. 4/2011 [F. NO. 279/MISC./M-20/2011-ITJ], DATED 9-3-2011

Several instructions and directions have been issued by the CBDT from time to time emphasizing upon the need for timely filing of appeals/SLPs in the Supreme Court and proper conduct of litigation. However, a number of SLPs are being filed with inordinate delay. In the wake of repeated displeasure expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the present state of affairs, Ld. Attorney General for India has advised the Board to work towards a "Zero Delay Regime" in the matter of filing of appeals/SLPs.

2. In view of the above and with a view to ensure filing of appeals/SLPs within the period prescribed, following instructions are issued in supersession of all earlier instructions on the subject.

(more…)

The sitting list and assignment of Judicial Work on the Original side of the Bombay High Court on and from Monday, the 7th March 2011 until further orders will be as under:

SUDHIR CHANDRA, IRS
Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi.

28th Jan 2011

My dear Chief Commissioner,

Sub: Delay in filing SLPs / Appeals before the High Courts – reg

Ref: Adverse observations of the Supreme Court

As you are aware, the Apex Court of the country has time & again expressed its anguish & annoyance over the delayed filing of SLPs as also appeals in the High Courts. In some cases, such delay is inordinate. The inordinate delay is more pronounced in high revenue cases. The Attorney General of India has conveyed the Apex Court’s displeasure to the Union finance Minister, who has desired to take immediate action against the officials found responsible for such lapse and to put in place proper mechanism ensuring that appeals are filed well in time and departmental litigation is conducted in an orderly manner. It is therefore directed that:

i. The Chief Commissioner and Commissioner concerned would be personally responsible to ensure timely filing of appeals;

(more…)

The sitting list and assignment of Judicial Work on the Original side of the Bombay High Court on and from Wednesday, the 5th January 2011 until further orders will be as under: