SHAFI IBRAHIM KAZI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who is a lawyer by profession, challenging communication dtd. 11/9/2018 issued by a Liquidator, the Friends Co-operative Bank Limited - respondent no.2, thereby rejecting the demand made by the petitioner for his professional fees.

(2.) The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that he was appointed by the Friends Co-operative Bank Limited, for the purpose of handling their matters in Labour Court. The petitioner has further claimed that time and again he has demanded his fees from the respondent bank, however, his professional fees were not paid by the bank. It is further submitted that by a communication dtd. 25/3/2014, the then Liquidator of the respondent-bank requested the petitioner to continue to defend the bank in pending cases and further that it was responsibility and was binding to the respondent-bank to pay professional fees of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner further wrote various letters to the respondent-bank and also to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies reminding them of the fees payable to him. As the respondents failed to clear the outstanding amount, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 824 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dtd. 5/7/2018. In the said order, the submissions of the petitioner were noted down and the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies was directed to examine the petitioner's claim and take appropriate decision on it, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order.

(3.) Pursuant thereto, by the impugned communication dtd. 11/9/2018, the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Court informed the petitioner that the petitioner had conducted, the matters in Labour Court on behalf of the bank before the bank went into liquidation. A bill of Rs.8,90,000.00 was submitted by the petitioner, out of which a sum of Rs.4,34,500.00 had been paid to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the fees demanded by the petitioner was inappropriate and exorbitant and therefore cannot be paid. It was also informed that there was no agreement between the bank and the petitioner advocate for fixing the quantum of professional fees. Hence, the demand made by the petitioner was rejected by the said communication dtd. 11/9/2018.