Legal Provisions Involved: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Judgement by: High Court of Delhi
Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta
Facts
The petitioner was engaged as Special Counsel by the Ministry of Urban Development to represent the Ministry and DDA before the National Green Tribunal. While DDA paid the petitioner for some appearances, outstanding fees for other appearances remained unpaid. Despite protracted correspondence and mediation, no resolution was reached.
Key Legal Provisions
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Issues raised
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for recovery of advocate’s professional fees.
- Whether the petitioner’s engagement and fee structure were validly agreed upon.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the terms of engagement were accepted as DDA had already paid for earlier appearances without disputing rates and no controversy was raised during correspondence regarding fee structure. The Respondent on the other hand argued that no contract existed as the proposed rates were never formally accepted and duplicate billing was submitted for the same hearing dates.
Judgement
The Court directed DDA to pay outstanding fee bills with interest at 9% per annum
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
