Writ Jurisdiction Not An Alternate Recovery Mechanism For Commercial Or Professional Contracts: Madras High Court
A former empanelled advocate for Punjab National Bank, sought payment of outstanding bills towards professional fees and expenses.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice G. Arul Murugan, Madras HC
The Madras High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy for enforcing a claim for professional fees arising out of an attorney-client relationship, especially where the facts are seriously disputed.
In the present case, the appellant, a former empanelled advocate for Punjab National Bank, sought payment of outstanding bills towards professional fees and expenses. He contended that the outstanding dues were undisputed and alleged that the delay in payment was owing to administrative malice and demands for a 40% commission by certain bank officials.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed,” A writ is an extraordinary public law remedy. It is designed to correct glaring constitutional overreaches, failures of public duty, and arbitrary abuses of State power. It is not intended to serve as an alternate recovery mechanism for commercial or professional contracts.”
The Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge declining to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to resolve a dispute involving unpaid professional legal fees.
Advocate Sunit Kumar Agarwal appeared for the appellants and Advocate P. Raghunath appeared for the respondents.
The Court further held that for a court to step into the realm of contract under writ jurisdiction, "the appellant must demonstrate an absolute, unambiguous admission of liability by the respondent, coupled with shocking arbitrariness that offends the sense of justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The Bench added that when the respondent raises questions regarding the performance of a service, the matter loses its public law character and enters the domain of private civil obligations.
The Bench found that the claims submitted by the appellant were not admitted by the bank. It noted that the bank had explicitly cited deficiencies in the legal services rendered, while the appellant had countered with grave criminal allegations of bribery and corruption.
Holding that the dispute was contractual in nature, the Court said the learned Single Judge was right in concluding that a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy to resolve the matter and found no legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal.
Observing that the dismissal of the writ petition did not leave the appellant without a remedy, the Bench said he had knocked on the wrong judicial door. It granted liberty to approach a competent civil court or appropriate forum, where both parties could file detailed pleadings, produce documents, cross-examine witnesses and establish the truth through a regular trial.
The Court also directed that the time spent bona fide prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal would be excluded while computing limitation if a civil suit is filed.
Cause Title: Sunit Kumar Agarwal v. The Asst. General Manager & Ors.
