IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 29.10.2021

DATE OF DECISION : 21.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.NO.536 OF 2015

L.Jayakumar

... Appellant

.Vs.

1. Central Bank of India,

Rep. By its General Manager,

48/49, Montieth Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 8.

2. Central Bank of India,

Asset Recovery Cell,

Rep. By its Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office,

48/49, Montieth Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 8.

... Respondents

PRAYER:-

Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of

Patent against the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.17177

of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

PRAYER IN W.P.NO.17177 OF 2011:-

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct

the respondents herein to pay the arrears of legal

fees and the remuneration of the petitioner to a sum of

Rs.26,42,615/- with interest.

For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman

Standing Counsel

For Mr.V.Karthikeyan

For Respondents :

Mr.T.M.Hariharan

JUDGMENT

T.RAJA, J.

Unsuccessful appellant has brought this appeal challenging

the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.17177 of 2011, dated 20.10.2014.

2. It is the claim of the appellant before the learned

Single Judge that the respondent bank refused to pay the arrears

of legal fees and remuneration to a sum of Rs.26,42,615/- along

with interest. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.17177 of 2011 seeking

for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent bank

to pay the above said payment. Learned Single Judge refused to

accept the said prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed

the present writ appeal.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that

the appellant is an Advocate and Senior Member in the Bar having

practice in the Madras High Court for over 36 years. He was in

the panel of Advocates nearly 36 years in most of the

nationalized banks and corporate including Central Government

undertaking Companies. The appellant and his brother were

partners in a registered legal firm M/s.L.Jayakumar &

Associates, in which, the appellant was having 80% share till

2008. The said firm is one among the panel of Advocates for

various nationalized Banks, Central Government and State

Government Undertaking and the appellant was to appear at Delhi,

Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kerala.

4. Whileso, in the year 2001, the appellant was requested to

assist a Nationalized Bank (Canara Bank) to collect confidential

particulars of a chronic defaulter in London while he was in

London. In the middle of 2003, the respondent bank approached

the appellant and informed that M/s.S&S Power Switch Gear

Limited was their customer, however, since the said Concern

became a Sick Unit, the respondent bank was to find a way to

recover a sum of Rs.472.24 lakhs in the recovery proceeding

pending on the file of DRT, Madras, in O.A.No.223/03 (New

No.526/07). The appellant, after studying various factors,

opined that the said Company might have created an artificial

loss with an intention to prevent the creditors from realising

their investments and loan, therefore, unless all the consortium

of all the banks, who have advanced loan, make a joint effort

expeditiously before the alleged winding up proceeding, it would

be difficult to recover the said loan. Thereafter, based on the

advise of the appellant, the respondent bank decided to initiate

necessary legal action, for which, the respondent bank offered

payment of 5% as fees to the appellant in the event of

succeeding in his efforts to recover atleast 25% of the book

debt. Thereafter, the appellant had explored all the

possibilities to recover the loa