Disposed

Mrs.R.Sumathi, v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Madras HC19 Nov 2019WP/8492/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court admitted a writ petition claiming professional fees due to the petitioner's deceased husband. The parties reached a settlement, and the respondent paid the agreed sum via demand draft. The court closed the petition without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as the parties settled the dispute and the petitioner received the agreed amount; no costs awarded.

Mrs.R.Sumathi, Vs Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.8492 of 2015

¶6

R. Sumathi ... Petitioner

¶7

/vs/

¶8

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., (CMRL), rep. by its Managing Director, Admin Building, CMRL Depot, Poonamallee High Road, (Opposite to Daniel Thomas School), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.21,40,000/-being the professional fees payable to the petitioner's husband late Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan, Advocate for rendering his professional services to the respondent herein based on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.08.2014 .

¶10

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to pay a sum of Rs.21,40,000/- being the professional fees payable to the petitioner's husband late Mr. V.Ramajegadesan.

¶11

According to the petitioner, her husband Mr.V.Ramajegadesan was engaged as counsel by the respondent-CMRL to appear for the respondent in various litigations before this Court, for which, a sum of Rs.21,40,000/- is due to him. Even though he had sent copies of the orders and concerned bills to

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

the respondent, but the same was not settled to him. In the mean time, the said Ramajegadesan died on 22.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for the above said relief.

¶14

Even though the respondent admitted the fact that Mr.V.Ramajegadesan was engaged by them, they disputed the quantum of amount payable to him.

¶15

Earlier, when the matter came up for hearing , the parties have settled the issues between themselves and they have mutually decided that a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) (before tax) could be paid to the petitioner, and, the matter is adjourned today.

¶16

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent filed a joint memo of Compromise duly signed by the parties and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also handed over a demand draft for a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- after deducting TDS and the learned counsel for the petitioner also received the same.

¶17

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and the petitioner also received the amount as per the settlement, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition and the writ petition is closed. No costs. Joint memo of compromise filed by the parties shall form part of the order.

¶18

*Enclosed Xerox Copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise.

¶19

mrp

¶20

2/5

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., (CMRL), Admin Building, CMRL Depot, Poonamallee High Road, (Opposite to Daniel Thomas School), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.

¶24

+1cc to Mr. Jayesh B.Dolia, Advocate sr.96412 +1cc to Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, Advocate sr.95997

¶25

W.P.No.8492 of 2015 cp(co) nr 10/02/2020

¶26

3/5

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.R.Sumathi, v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.R.Sumathi, v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Veerasekaran, Vs the Managing Director

Texel Industries Vs M/S.Export Credit Guarantee

Bhavani Aatru Neer Pasana Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Chelladurai Vs The Secretary to Government

N.K.Jinnah Vs the Regional Manager

V.Parthasarathy Vs The Government of Tamilnadu