Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Pabitra Roychaudhuri – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of VAT, Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unpaid professional bills of appointed advocate. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. acknowledgment of pending payments and government response. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government obligations to pay legal professionals promptly. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's directive for payment of retainership fee. (Para 8) |
| 5. judicial insistence on timely fee clearance by government. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present litigation is the unfortunate consequence of the Petitioner, who was appointed as a lawyer for representing the GNCTD before the High Court of Delhi, not being paid his professional fees.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as the Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) on 24th June, 2016. Between July, 2016 to August, 2017, he submitted various bills for the professional services rendered by him, which constituted about 124 bills. The appointment of the Petitioner was withdrawn by the GNCTD on 8th September, 2017, however, his bills totalling to Rs.26,31,200/- were not cleared. Accordingly, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for payment of the said bills.
4. Notice was issued i
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
