MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. V.N. MOHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been brought by the Managing Director and the General Manager of C.M.W.S.S.B., Chennai, challenging the correctness of the impugned order dtd. 14/9/2018 passed in W.P. No.29562 of 2013, wherein the learned Single Judge, allowing the same, directed the appellants to settle the bill amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

(2.) Mr.N.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent/writ petitioner has submitted his bio-data requesting the Board to include his name in the Board panel advocates. Accepting his request, the second appellant had sent a letter dtd. 7/6/2002 to the respondent/writ petitioner informing that as per his request, the Board has decided to entrust the High Court cases to the respondent with the following fees structure:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the above said letter dtd. 7/6/2002 clearly stated that the fees would be paid as per the above said fee structure only and the same was duly acknowledged by the respondent/writ petitioner on 14/6/2002. In this regard, the Board has entrusted a case in O.A. No.309 of 2005 to the Advocate Mr.V.N.Mohanraj/ respondent herein and engaged the Government Pleader Mr.V.Raghupathy to defend the case on behalf of the Board, which, by filing a counter affidavit, disclosing the facts, prayed this Court to issue suitable directions to settle the issue in the interest of justice. As against the interim order passed on 18/4/2005 in A.No.1440 of 2005 in O.A. No.309 of 2005, O.S.A. No.81 of 2005 was preferred by one IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, represented by its Chief Engineer. However, the said O.S.A. No.81 of 2005 was disposed of on 29/4/2005 with a direction to M/s.IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd.,Chennai-97 to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.5.00 crores to the second appellant Board and on compliance of the said condition, the second appellant Board was directed to make payment of Rs.10.00 crores to the first appellant. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Government Pleader Mr.V.Raghupathy had claimed Rs.30,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00 as fees for his appearances in O.S.A. No.81 of 2005 and O.A. No.309 of 2005 and claimed l/3rd fees for the respondent herein in the above cases, namely, Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00. Accordingly, the Board has paid fees Rs.30,000.00 and Rs.10,000.00 in O.S.A. No.81 of 2005 on 23/5/2005 and paid Rs.15,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 in O.A. No.309 of 2005 on 24/1/2006 and 11/11/2009 to Mr.V.Raghupathy and Mr.V.N.Mohanraj respectively. Subsequently, the sub contractor M/s.IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd., the applicant and M/s.Gammon India Ltd., main contractor, the first respondent in O.A. No.309 of 2005 had settled the issue amicably out of the Court and filed a memo withdrawal of O.A. No.309 of 2005. Accordingly, Application Nos.1440 and 1441 of 2005 were dismissed as settled out of Court and consequently O.A. No.309 of 2005 was also dismissed on 8/11/2005. While so, the writ petitioner/respondent has claimed a fee of Rs.10,91,789.00 as per the bill dtd. 6/12/2005 with interest from the dateof the bill for O.A. No.309 of 2005 as per the High Court Fees Rules 1956. As he was entrusted with the case after agreeing for the fee structure of the Board, he is estopped from claiming more fees than what he had agreed and acknowledged as per letter dtd. 7/6/2002. Therefore, the Rule 2(l)(b) will be applicable only to the suits and not to the Original Application and the claim of Rs.10,91,789.00 by the respondent/writ petitioner is not justifiable. But, this aspect has been completely over looked by the learned Single Judge.