Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Jagat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is a first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 57226/2016 (Old No. 1276/2014) dated 30.10.2018 titled as "Jagat Singh Vs Union of India & Ors", whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,08,500/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to, as they were referred before the learned Trial Court.
FACTS NOTED BY THE TRIAL COURT
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was a Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government from 28.04.2005 to 27.04.2008 and on 12.11.2009 vide order No. F24(1)/2009-Judl., of defendant No.3/ the Law Secretary, his name was further included, for a period of three years, on the panel of Senior Counsels for conducting cases filed against Public Officers while in service of Central Government, before the High Court of Delhi and Tribunals/etc.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as a panel coun
An allegation of collusion must be specifically averred with details and proved. Although it is apparent that the defendant no. 2 admitted to the claim made by the plaintiff, the evidence led by the ....
[The court established that the circulars issued by MSEDCL regarding counsel's fees were binding and that the plaintiff was entitled to fees based on these circulars, despite MSEDCL's claims of lack ....
The appellant failed to substantiate claims for recovery of fees and damages, lacking necessary evidence and authority, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The Court emphasized that public authorities must honor payment obligations to legal representatives, rejecting claims of non-agreement on fees where precedent payments were made, and affirmed the ma....
Arbitration fees must adhere strictly to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement, and unilateral alterations by the Tribunal are impermissible.
The appellant failed to provide evidence of the amount payable, and the claim for damages due to defamation was not substantiated. The court also rejected the claim for interest and breach of contrac....
Section 2 (d) of the Act the Arbitral Tribunal is defined either as a sole arbitrator or a Panel of arbitrators and the language used in Sub Section (14) of Section 11 is for "determination of Fees o....
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
