Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2070 (RAJ)

Bhupendra Kumar Bhatnagar v. Vijaya Bank

2021-11-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "a) The respondents be directed to clear the dues to the petitioner and should made the payment of Rs.376849/- as per Annexure-6. b) That further interest be also awarded at the rate of 12% till payment is made." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in 3.P. Joshi, Advocate Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3359/2000, decided on 14.12.2001), relevant portion of which reads as under: "9. After hearing counsel for parties, I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that a panel was constituted by the Syndicate and the fees of the Advocates was fixed as mentioned therein. The approval were sought by the University from the counsel, to which the petitioner, who is one of the senior, experienced Advocate practising in High Court, had specifically informed the University that he would be able to contest the cases of University on the terms as expressed by him, which fact stands established. It was upto University to have not given any case to petitioner, if the terms of the petitioner were not acceptable to the University. But the University in its wisdom, despite the letters written by petitioner, had still handed over certain brief to petitioner which were successfully contested by the petitioner on behalf of the University. It cannot be ruled out that the petitioner remained under impression that his terms have been accepted, and, therefore, he had rightly submitted the fee bill according to his own terms. Even otherwise, in my opinion, the Senior Advocate having vast expertise of conducting the law cases, has sent the bill as per his terms, it cannot be said to be excessive side or on high side specially when the University is also making payment of fee to Senior Advocates in Supreme Court at per day basis as mentioned above. There is no merit in the contention of petitioner. Not only this but the University had even made payment of fee as per annexure-1. There is no merit in the contention of petitioner. Not only this but the University had even made payment of fee as per annexure-1. It was not proper for the University to now to say that the amount should be recovered from the Advocate/petitioner, which payment of fee was not at all excessive. If the terms of the fee of petitioner were not acceptable to University/litigant the University was at liberty not to engage this counsel to contest the case. But if the counsel is so engaged by the University, the University is bound to make payment of fee as asked by the counsel. The moment the brief is given to counsel, despite the fact that the counsel bad clearly mentioned that he would not charge the fees less than as demanded by him, it is presumed that the University had agreed to such situation. The fee of counsel can vary from counsel to counsel according to the panel, the fee has been prescribed irrespective of the fact of experience or standing of the counsel. 10. For the above said discussion, the "respondent is bound to pay the fee to Advocate as demanded by him if the cases were so entrusted. However, the University in its wisdom is always at liberty to engage the counsel with lesser fee, if the University feels or if in its opinion the fee asked by the counsel is too high, the University may not engage such a counsel. The Vice- Chancellor is authorised under the provision to act in such situation to agree or not to agree the terms as put by the counsel. In case the earlier Vice- Chancellor in view of the experience of the counsel had agreed to the terms of the counsel, it cannot be said that the Vice-chancellor had acted beyond its powers. 11. Before parting with the judgment, I may opine that the University which is statutory authority and imparting education to the students must not unnecessarily involve itself in unnecessary litigation as to create an impression of extraneous consideration having been played in either way. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is hardly any necessity for me to go into the matter of mala fide against the members of Syndicate. No other point has been agitated by either of the parties. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is hardly any necessity for me to go into the matter of mala fide against the members of Syndicate. No other point has been agitated by either of the parties. The action of the University cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is set aside. 13. In the result the writ petition is allowed with the direction as prayed in writ petition. No recovery of any amount can be made from the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to the fee as per his terms of the case already conducted and bill submitted, which were impliedly agreed to by University, when despite the letter of petitioner the cases were handed over to the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition is allowed with cost. The cost is assessed as Rs. 500/-." 4. Learned counsels for the parties are in agreement that the aforequoted judgment is applicable in the present case. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are accordingly, directed to pay the fee due to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,76,849/- alongwith current rate of interest applicable for the Banks from the date of raising of bills to be paid, within a period of three months from today. It is needless to say that since Vijaya Bank, has now been merged in the Bank of Baroda, therefore, the present order shall be complied with by the Bank of Baroda. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.