Adani group moves HC against lawyer, accuses him of blackmail

Chennai

The Madras High Court today restrained an advocate of a city-based law firm engaged by the Adani Group of Gujarat from disclosing professional communication sent to him in connection with the company’s proposed purchase of land for a multi-crore power project in Ramanathapuram District in Tamil Nadu.

Issuing the interim order, valid till March 14, on a suit by the Adani Green Energy (Tamil Nadu) Ltd, Justice K K Sasidharan issued notice to advocate Kabilan Manoharan, who the company alleged was ‘blackmailing’ it demanding higher fees.

The company has moved the court alleging the lawyer had been issuing threats to it that he would expose “infractions” committed by its officials and those funding the project and names of various institutions involved in the multi-crore venture if it did not pay him the increased fee of around Rs 1.43 crore demanded by him for his professional work.

The applicant submitted it has engaged the lawyer to verify the title deeds of thousands of acres of land proposed to be purchased for the solar project with a view to avoid possible litigation in future.

As per the agreement executed by them with the advocate, it had been agreed to pay Rs 6,000 per acre to him in three stages as fees and so far paid him a sum of Rs 70 lakh.

However, the advocate increased his fees from Rs 6,000 per acre to Rs 15,000 and through a letter January 4, last letter called upon them to pay the revised fee. Subsequently, he demanded a further payment of Rs 1,43,16,840, it said.

Thereafter, he sent two more letters by e-mail in January threatening the Company that he would expose the ‘infractions’ committed by its officials and those funding the project and names of various institutions involved in the project.

Even though the company through its January 19 reply informed him that it had not indulged in any kind of acts or omissions, which would constitute fraud, he continued with his threat through a series of letters, the company submitted.

In the latest communication sent by email on February 16, he had said he would expose the applicants, in case the matter is not settled within seven days, following which the company has filed the present suit and application.

After hearing arguments on behalf of the company, Justice Sasidharan said Section 126 of the Evidence Act is a bar for disclosing information received by the lawyer from his clients in the course of and for the purpose of his employment as a lawyer. There is an exception to the proviso that under certain circumstances, the lawyer owes a duty to disclose such information in the interest of society. PTI