Panel advocate challenged deletion of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a corrigendum altering his arbitration fee structure. The Division Bench found the deleted respondents acted without personal malice, as the corrigendum carried competent authority approval, and declined to interfere with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
MOHIT KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1.1 Via the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has deleted respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the array of parties. The rationale provided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is that no allegation of mala fides or malpractice has been levelled against respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 20:25:32
changed on 01.12.2017 although the earlier terms and conditions obtaining as on 31.08.2017 were reiterated in July, 2018. Notably, the so-called reiterated terms and conditions are found on page 43 of the case file. The document does not bear a date.
“ 1. In partial modification to this office letter of even number dated 31.08.2017 regarding terms and conditions (ToR) of the panel Advocates of TDB, please note the following:
The fee structure given at para 2 (Professional Fees) and sub para 6 of page 3 of above ToR pertains to sole Arbitrator. The advocates assigned the arbitration cases will be paid fees as follows:
| (i) | In th | e Arbitration matters | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. Clai |
Preparation of m Petition |
Rs 7,500/- | |
| b. Subs Appl |
Miscellaneous & equent ication/Submission |
Rs 3500/- | |
| c. | Clerkage | ||
| d. | Miscs Expenses | 10% of filing fee | |
| As per actual |
|||
| e. | Arbitration Hearing | maximum up to 10% of filing fee |
|
| Rs 1500/- per effective hearing |
|||
| Rs 300/- per non- effective hearing |
(ii) Other terms of reference remain same.
2. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority ”
[Emphasis is ours]
LPA 132/2022
Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 20:25:32
“ PROFESSIONAL FEES
LPA 132/2022
Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 20:25:32
Trial Courts/Forums/Tribunals
| Sl. No | Nature of Service | Rate (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 6. | Arbitration Matter | Between Rs 75,000/- to Rs |
| a. Lump-sum amount will |
1,00,000/- (As decided by th Bd i h |
|
| be paid for preparing, filing and defending petitions / appeals |
e oar n eac case). | |
| without any further charges for | ||
| appearance in the court. b. Clerkage. |
10% of professional fee. As per actuals maximum |
|
| upto 10% of professional | ||
| c. Misc Expenses |
fee.” |
LPA 132/2022
Page 4of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 20:25:32
order.
(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE
(AMIT BANSAL) JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2024 /kd
LPA 132/2022
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.01.2024 20:25:32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in deleting respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the array of parties.
Whether TDB could amend the panel advocate's fee structure after the appellant was engaged.
Mohit Kumar Sharma
Technology Development Board
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
