Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO
P.Ram Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Shippig Corporation of India Ltd, Bombay - Respondent
Decided On : 08-19-92
WRIT PETITION - LEGAL FEES - CLAIM FOR PAYMENT - MAINTAINABILITY - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION - INTEREST - WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Senior Advocate, claimed payment of legal fees from the respondent, Shipping Corporation of India, for services rendered to Jayanthi Shipping Company, which was taken over by the respondent. The respondent denied the claim, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable, the claim was barred by limitation, the court lacked jurisdiction, and there was no agreement for payment of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the claim was admitted by the respondent through its conduct and correspondence. The claim was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose only when the respondent unequivocally denied the claim. The court had jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. The petitioner was entitled to interest from the date of filing the writ petition, considering the long pendency of the matter.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition for claiming legal fees. 2. Limitation period for recovery of professional fees. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition. 4. Entitlement to interest on the legal fees.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is maintainable for claiming admitted legal fees, even in the absence of a formal agreement. 2. The limitation period for recovery of professional fees is three years from the date the right to recover the amount is unequivocally denied by the defendant. 3. A court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter even if a fraction of the cause of action accrues within its local limits. 4. Interest may be awarded from the date of filing the writ petition, considering the long pendency of the matter.
Final Decision: The court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the claimed legal fees along with interest from the date of filing the writ petition.
( 1 ) WRIT petition is filed by a Senior Advocate for issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay Rs. 2,18,600/- (Rupees two lakhs eighteen thousand and six hundred only) together with simple interest at 12% per annum from 1st April, 1966 to the date of payment.
( 2 ) THE claim of the petitioner is that he worked as the Legal Adviser to Messrs jayanthi Shipping Company (hereinafter referred to as the company ) for the years 1961 to 1966; that he has been submitting a diary of work done for the company regularly for each year s work done, in the subsequent year: that the company was usually making payments in the next financial year for the work done in the previous year; that the company was taken over with its assets and liabilities by the respondent; that as such the respondent is bound to pay whatever sum is due to the petitioner from the company; that there was lot of correspondence between the parties; that the petitioner addressed several letters (the details of which are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition) and the respondent by its letter dated 13-2-1990 has rejected petitioner s claim and that the respondent is liable to pay at the rate of rs. 1,600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred only) per day towards the petitioner s remuneration.
( 3 ) THE respondent denied the petitioner s claim on the grounds that the writ petition is not maintainable to enforce contractual obligations; that the company was taken over by the respondent with a view to secure proper management of the undertaking of the company; that by reason of taking over of the management the respondent is not bound to pay whatever the amounts are claimed by the petitioner in the absence of any agreement for payment of fees and proof of the nature of work done by the petitioner; that the petitioner s claim is barred by laches and delay on his part; that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and that there is no evidence that the diaries were accepted by Dr. Teja, the former Chairman of the company. On those allegations the respondent submitted that there is no legal basis for the petitioner to claim the sum of rs. 2,18,600/- towards his fee together with interest at 18% per annum from april, 1966.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner acted as Legal Adviser of the company from 1961 to 1965; that in or about June, 1965 thecompany was taken over by the respondent (Shipping Corporation of India) by an ordinance; that the petitioner has been submitting a diary of the work done by him every year; that for the year 1961-62, a bill was paid in full; that for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 the bills were paid in part; that for the year 1964- 65, no payment was made at all and that when the Shipping Corporation has taken over the management of the company with all its assets and liabilities, the respondent is liable to pay the legal fee due to the petitioner for the services rendered by him as the legal adviser of the company. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the respondent has taken over the management a letter dated 6-7-1966 has been addressed to the petitioner in response to which the petitioner has written a detailed letter dated 15-8-1966 substantiating his claims enclosing copies of diaries submitted by him for the years 1961 to 1965; that on the suggestion of the respondent the petitioner went to Madras and to bombay to settle his claim and that it is only by letter dated 13-2-1990 that the respondent has rejected the petitioner s claim in toto. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the legal remuneration claimed at rs. 1,600/- per day for six years of the work done by the petitioner which was the then prevailing day fee payable to an Advocate of Supreme Court is quite reasonable; that in fact the States of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala were paying the petiti
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
