The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of legal practitioners to their professional fees as per the relevant rules and acts, and the obligation of the respondents to settle the outstanding fees promptly.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.62,50,815/- to the first Petitioner, Rs.10,41,777/-to the second petitioner and Rs.10,41,777/-to the third petitioner being the Fee bill amount with interest at 12% p.a. in terms of the bill dated 13.7.2010 as per the break up of principal and interest as shown in paragraph 12 with future interest.

2. The first petitioner was the former learned Advocate General of State of Tamil Nadu and Senior Counsel of this Court and petitioners 2 & 3 are learned counsels practising before this Court. The respondents engaged the first petitioner as Senior Counsel in arbitration proceedings on a claim raised by Gammon STG Joint Venture, Mumbai against the respondents. The said Gammon STG Joint Venture, Mumbai raised a claim of Rs.55.79 crores together with interest at 12% per annum from 15.05.2005 due to escalation of steel cost in the said arbitration proceedings by raising arbitration clause. For the said arbitration proceedings, one Velu was appointed as their Arbitrator, which necessitated the first respondent to appoint a nominee Arbitrator on their behalf and one Srinivasan, a retired Chief Engineer of CMWSSB was appointed as Co-Arbitrator. The said arbitrators in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nominated one Senthil Velan as the Umpire.

3. The petitioners contention is that the claim was raised by the said claimant due to the steel price escalation in work and supply, laying, joint testing and commissioning of Clear Water Transmission from Ongur to Porur Package IV under Chennai Water Augmentation Project. The first respondent has availed the services of the first petitioner to appear on behalf of the respondent Board as Senior counsel in the said arbitration proceedings along with other petitioners, who assisted him in the said proceedings. In the Claim petition an application was filed by the respondent Board on the advice and guidance of the petitioners raising preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitration proceedings were heard and orders were reserved by the Arbitral Tribunal.

4. The first petitioner raised a bill on 20.04.2009 and adhoc payment of Rs.5 lakh was paid by the respondent Board after deducting TDS. The claimants counsel thereafter filed an Interlocutory application for reopening the arbitral proceedings and further arguments were heard on 06.03.2010. The Arbitral Tribunal, after hearing the matters at length, reserved orders and ultimately pronounced orders on 17.05.2011 rejecting the claim of the claimant.

5. The petitioners raised a bill with the respondents on 20.04.2009 towards the professional fee in terms of Order 43 Rule 16 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and as per Rule 2(c) order V of the Practitioners fee. The fee was calculated in terms of the said Rules, which works out at Rs.74,57,300/-(Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand and Three Hundred only) for the total claim raised by the claimant in the arbitration proceedings. The first petitioner raised the bill on behalf of himself and other petitioners on 20.04.2009 and a reminder was sent on 31.08.2009. The respondent Board paid a sum of Rs.4,48,500/-on 08.10.2009 in favour of the first petitioner and a further sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on 05.07.2010 and Rs.2,70,000/-in the name of the second petitioner and Rs.1,80,000/-towards the third petitioner. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award dated 17.05.2010 accepting the contention regarding the preliminary objection.

6. The first petitioner raised a bill on 13.07.2010 after indicating all the payments made in terms of the said statutory provisions and to settle the balance fee of Rs.54,47,300/-and also gave details as to how the cheques are to be issued in the name of the petitioners. Though, the respondents were reminded several times to settle the bills, no action was taken by the respondents.