CANARA BANK Vs. RAJIV TYAGI AND ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant no.1 in a suit for recovery of Rs.4,68,796/- with interest and costs instituted by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. The petitioner /defendant no.1 (hereinafter called Bank) is aggrieved from the order dated 28th March, 2009 of the trial court dismissing the application of the Bank for permission to serve interrogatories on the respondent no.1/plaintiff. This court while issuing notice of this petition vide ex parte order dated 20th July, 2009 which remains in force stayed further proceedings in the suit before the trial court.

(2.) The respondent no.1/plaintiff, in the plaint in the suit from which this petition arises, pleaded that it was rendering legal advice and services to the Bank; that it was an empanelled lawyer /law firm with the Bank; that the Bank had devised a schedule of fee for engaging advocates for handling legal matters before various courts/foras and as per which schedule 50% of the fee was to be paid upfront at the time of entrustment of the case and the balance 50% upon disposal of the matter and in addition, the fee for interlocutory applications, appeals etc.; that the respondent no.1/plaintiff used to raise bills on the Bank which used to be paid after considerable delay and many of the bills remained unpaid. The respondent no.1/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.4,68,796/- to be due from the Bank towards outstanding invoices due as per the statement of accounts filed as Annexure 2 to the plaint; the true and correct copies of the bills raised during the period 19th October, 2000 to 14th December, 2004 was annexed to the plaint as Annexure 1.

(3.) The Bank contested the suit by filing the written statement. In the said written statement the Bank dealt with several of the bills in the statement Annexure-2 and took pleas with respect thereto, either of several of the bills being for the same service, or denying the correctness of the bill or pleading the bill to have been paid and also relying upon the admissions/acknowledgments of the respondent no.1/plaintiff of amounts under several bills being not due.