Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 22 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-12-05 allowed

B. Sunitha vs State of Telengana & Anr

Bench: 2 — Adarsh Kumar Goel

In Brief

An advocate filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a client (widow of motor accident victim) for dishonour of a cheque given as fee. The advocate had already received Rs. 10 lakhs and later demanded an additional Rs. 3 lakhs, claiming 16% of the compensation awarded—allegedly based on percentage of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court held that contingent and percentage-based advocate fees violate professional ethics and public policy. Without a written agreement proving the debt, a cheque cannot establish enforceable liability under Section 138. The advocate must prove the contract and quantum of fee; the client's dispute shifts the burden. The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process, though the professional misconduct issue was left for the Bar Council to address.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Law Professional Ethics Negotiable Instruments Advocate's Fee Contract Law Access to Justice

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login