GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R THILLAIVILLALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Thillaivillalan is an Advocate who was appearing for the Corporation of the City of Madras in several of its c,ases. He was engaged to appear for the Corporation in a large number of cases in various Courts in the City of Madras. Some dispute having arisen touching the remuneration for his professional services to the Corporation, he brought a writ petition before the High Court for issue of appropriate directions to the Corporation to settle and pay remuneration for the professional services rendered by him. The Corporation resisted the proceedings on several grounds, including the one that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 should decline to go into such a matter. The learned single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to this view and dismissed the writ petition. But in appeal the learned judges of the Division Bench, however, thought that there should be no impediment to relief being confined to what appeared to them to be undisputed parts of the claim. The Division Bench relied upon the figures furnished by the Corporation itself and came to the conclusion that, at all events, even if all the deductions claimed by the Corporation were accepted a sum of Rs. 84,212,21 would yet remain due and payable to the respondent. This sum, the High Court directed the appellants to pay along with interest at 12% per annum. The Appellant-Corporation has brought this appeal by special leave.

(2.) We have heard Sri V. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Having regard to the figures and state of accounts discussed by the Division Bench in arriving at the sum of Rs. 84,212.21 as payable to the respondent, it appears unnecessary to traverse the factual position over again. The principal grievance of the appellants is not so much as to the correctness of the quantification as it is the very permissibility of relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226. Appellants say that, at all events, on the facts taken into account by the High Court, the award of interest was wholly unjustified.