Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14639

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
V. Ramachander Goud – Appellant
Versus
Hyderabad Cricket Association – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 3913 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri M. Hareesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Ms. Srihitha, Sri V. Rajender Rao

An Advocate is entitled to receive fair remuneration for professional services rendered to a client, and public institutions or associations cannot arbitrarily withhold legal fees or approbate and reprobate their professional engagement to avoid payment, as such actions undermine the dignity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to remuneration for professional services - Non-payment of legal fees to an Advocate by a client institution is arbitrary and violative of the right to fair treatment.

(B) Professional Fees - Remuneration Fixation - Where a client benefits from an Advocate’s services, they are under a legal obligation to provide payment; appellate/writ courts can intervene to enforce payment when fees are withheld without justifiable excuse, incorporating interest for delayed payments.

(C) Scope of Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction - An Advocate performing services as an officer of the court is entitled to maintain a writ petition for recovery of professional fees against a body performing public or institutional functions. (Paras 9, 14, 18, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an advocate, served as Standing Counsel for the respondent association since 2014, handling numerous legal matters. Following the non-payment of invoices submitted between 2017 and 2023, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking recovery of fees. The respondent association admitted to the services rendered but disputed the quantum of fees and argued that some invoices related to the personal legal matters of its former office bearers, which were restricted by a prior High Court order.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondent association cannot dispute its liability for services from which it substantially benefited. The court found no merit in the claim of exorbitant fees, noting that the petitioner's rates were reasonable and lower than historical precedents. Furthermore, the prior court order did not bar payment for cases where the association was the actual party. The court directed payment of the dues, applying specific interest rates for different categories of invoices.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to legal remuneration for services rendered; (ii) Whether a prior court order bars payment of the disputed bills; (iii) Whether interest is payable on the delayed remuneration.

Ratio Decidendi: An advocate, being an officer of the court, is entitled to equitable treatment and prompt payment for professional services; a client body cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefit of legal services while subsequently denying the obligation to pay for them, particularly when the non-payment is neither justified nor reasonable.

Result: Writ Petition allowed with directions for payment of remuneration along with interest.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for unpaid legal fees for professional services rendered. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondent's counter-argument regarding lack of appointment proof and service termination. (Para 3 , 4)
3. contentions of counsel regarding liability, contractual obligations, and fee structure. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's finding on entitlement to remuneration and the reasonableness of fees. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. determination that prior court orders do not bar payment of legitimate dues. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. awarding of interest for delayed payment of professional fees. (Para 22 , 23)
7. role of advocates as officers of the court and the necessity to protect their professional rights. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. final directions regarding payment modalities and interest calculations. (Para 31 , 32)

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgments ?	Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals	yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of judgment	No

_____________________________

(NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J)

WRIT PETITION No. 3913 OF 2025

% Dated 22.04.2026

Between:

V. Ramachander Goud

..... Petitioner

And

The Hyderabad Cricket Association,

Rep. by its Secretary R. Devaraj

..... Respondent

! Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Hareesh Kumar

^ Counsel for respondent : Ms. Srihitha

Representing Sri V. Rajender Rao

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases cited:

(1994) 1 SCC 184

(1994) 1 SCC 154

(2003) 2 SCC 45

O R D E R:

The case of Petitioner is that, he is an Advocate by profession and was appointed as Standing Counsel for respondent - Association in 2014. Since then, he has been representing the Association before various Courts of law including Tribunals, Commissions, Trial Courts, High Court and the Supreme Court of India. He has handled a large number of cases on behalf of Respondent Association and filed detailed counters along with relevant material papers in all the matters and has made diligent efforts to ensure that no adverse orders are passed against the Respondent Association.

1.1. Petitioner, it is stated, has also contested the cases for the Respondent Association in respect of an Agreement dated 16.10.2004 between the Association and M/s Visaka Industries Limited. In those proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal passed Award dated 15.03.2016 directing Respondent Association to pay Rs.25,92,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner, on the instructions of the Association, filed C.O.P. No.83 of 2016 before the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. In another instance, when the assets of Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium were attached by an order of the Court, and the bailiff came to execute the said Order at a time when the Indian Cricket Team Players were present for an international match, Petitioner secured the order to set aside the order of attachment from this Court within a short period of time by drafting the petition, moving a lunch motion and making arguments.

1.2. It is further stated, the bills raised by Petitioner are pending since 2017; he therefore, submitted 30 invoices to the Association covering cases from 2017 to 2023. Despite several requests through phone calls, messages and personal meetings, the Association failed to clear the pending bills. In 2019, the Association obtained No Objection Vakalathnamas in all the cases which he Petitioner was handling. In 2023, the Association again engaged Petitioner to protect its interests. Petitioner is therefore, stated to have made a written representation to the Association on 03.02.2025 bringing to their notice non-payment of long pending bills since 2017. Despite this, no payment was made.

2. This Court on 04.03.2025 passed the interim order directing the Association to pay the legal remuneration/fees to Petitioner within six weeks from the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14639

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNagesh Bheemapaka, JV. Ramachander Goud – AppellantVersusHyderabad Cricket Association – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 3913 of 2025

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
V. Ramachander Goud – Appellant
Versus
Hyderabad Cricket Association – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 3913 of 2025