Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Ayyadurai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 19905, 20129 of 2020 & 298 of 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Professional Fees - Government Orders - G.O.(D)No.182, HW and MP (HF2) Department 21.12.2021, G.O.(D) No. 29 Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department dated 01.02.2021 - G.O.Ms.No. 339, G.O.Ms. No. 486 - The court struck down the consequential Government Orders as arbitrary and irrational. The writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner. The Government was directed to examine the representations given by the petitioner with respect to the fee bills and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Advocate and former Additional Advocate General, filed writ petitions seeking direction against the respondents to pay his final fee bill as raised in three writ petitions. The Government had passed G.O.Ms. No. 339 determining the fees for Law Officers, which led to the amendment of the relief sought in the writ petitions from a writ of mandamus to a writ of certiorari mandamus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional were arbitrary and irrational. The consequential Government Orders were struck down. The court directed the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner and to examine the representations given by the petitioner with respect to the fee bills and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of professional fees for Law Officers by the Government Orders, the amendment of relief sought in the writ petitions, and the challenge to the consequential Government Orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional were arbitrary and irrational. The court also declared the two Government Orders as extremely arbitrary and irrational in nature. The court directed the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner and to examine the representations given by the petitioner with respect to the fee bills and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner. The Government was directed to examine the representations given by the petitioner with respect to the fee bills and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in G.O.(D)No.182, HW and MP (HF2) Department 21.12.2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,94,47,680/- together with interest at the rate of 12 percent for the period beyond six months of final fee bill dated 06.02.2018 i.e. From 06.08.2018 till the date of payment after deducting Rs.5,00,000/- already paid and received under protest.
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in G.O.(D)No.29, Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department dated 01.02.2021 as passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department/R3 and to quash the same consequently directing the respondents 1 to 5 to sanction and pay my professional fees of Rs.11,73,750 as claimed in my fee bill dated 12.03.2018 together with interest at 12 percent p.a. Thereon for the period beyond 6 months from the date of my fee bill dated 12.09.2018 till the date of payment by fixing out time limit for such payment.
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the professional fees as claimed in fee bill dated 12.03.2018 for Rs.45,43,868.75 np together with interest @ 12% p.a. With effect from 12.09.2018 till the date of payment by fixing the outer limit of time for making such payment.)
Common Order:
1. All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Mr. V. Ayyadurai, a Senior Advocate of this Court who was also formal Additional Advocate General. Originally in the nature of a mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to pay his final fee bill as raised in the three writ petitions.
2. The Government had passed G.O.Ms. No. 339/Public (Law Officers) Department dated 08.05.2018, wherein the fees for the Law Officers appearing before Arbitrators/Arbitral Tribunal and High of Madras both at Principal Seat and Madurai Bench and in other original side matters had been determined.
3. Consequent to the introduction of this Government Order, further Government Orders had been passed fixing the fees of the petitioner, and the relief sought in the writ petitions had been amended from a writ of mandamus to a writ of certiorari mandamus.
4. In W.P.No. 19905 of 2020, the writ petitioner had sought interference with G.O.(D).No.182, Highways and Minor Ports (HF2) Department dated 21.12.2021, by which in accordance with the aforementioned G.O.Ms.No. 339, the fees of the petitioner was determined.
5. In W.P.No. 20129 of 2020, the petitioner had sought to quash G.O.(D) No. 29 Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department dated 01.02.2021 by which the fees of the petitioner had been determined.
6. In W.P.No. 19905 of 2020, the petitioner had appeared on behalf of the Highways and Minor Ports (HV2) Department in an arbitration case where the claim was Rs. 616,66,83,700/-. The petitioner had appeared up to the stage of filing proof affidavit of R.W.1. He had raised a fee bill of 25 % out of 1% of the claim of the contractor namely Rs. 1,54,09,250/-.
7. On 08.05.2018, the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No. 339 by fixing the fee structure in case of pending arbitration cases, civil suits and other original side matters.
8. On 23.07.2019, G.O.(Ms) 486 Public (L.O) Department was passed wherein the expression ''award/decree'' was amended to ''value of suit''.
9. W.P.No. 20129 of 2020:
i) The petitioner had appeared in an arbitration claim for a value of Rs.15,64,98,528/- till the closing of evidence. He had claimed a bill of 75 % out of 1 % of the claim of the contractor amounting to Rs.11,73,750/-.
ii) Thereafter, G.O.(D) 29 was passed and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sanctioned towards the fees of the petitioner an
The court held that Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional were arbitrary and irrational, and directed the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in....
Every Advocate, who is rendering Legal provisional Services to the State and its instrumentalities in the capacity of Advocate-General, Additional Advocate-General, Law Officer and Standing Counsel, ....
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....
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
