Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought direction to pay legal fees for land acquisition cases. Court directed petitioner to produce prescribed bills and copies of judgments. Upon production, fees must be settled without delay. Writ petition disposed with direction.
What did the court decide?
Direction to produce prescribed bills and judgments. On receipt, the respondent must pay legal fees due to the petitioner without delay.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.37054 of 2004
M.Pughazhendhee ... Petitioner
vs. The Defense Estate Officer, Madras Circle, 306, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to make the payment of legal fees at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each for Annexure A cases and Rs.150/- for each Annexure B cases and Rs.500/- for each Annexure C cases to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Margabandhu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Kumaraguru
O R D E R
The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to make payment of legal fees at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each for Annexure A cases; Rs.150/- for each Annexure B cases and Rs.500/- for each Annexure C cases, to him.
- According to the petitioner, he is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu vide Enrolment No.932/89, presently practicing in Vellore. He was appointed as Additional Standing Counsel to take up Government cases vide order dated 23.05.2000 of the Government of India. He was entrusted with 300 L.A.O.P. cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Sub-Court at Ranipet. He filed Vakalat, counter and conducted cases and decrees were obtained. It is his further case that he invested huge amount and obtained decrees and judgments and handed over the same to the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to legal fees
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enforcement of payment for legal fees by way of a writ of mandamus.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Pughazhendhee
- respondent
The Defense Estate Officer, Madras Circle
Coram
S. Vaidyanathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court