High Court Rules on Writ Jurisdiction in Fee Dispute
The Madras High Court has recently clarified that lawyers cannot use writ petitions as a means to recover disputed professional fees, especially against a public sector entity. This ruling came from a case involving advocate Sunit Kumar Agarwal and the Punjab National Bank (PNB). The court’s decision was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
Writ Jurisdiction Explained
The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy designed primarily to address significant failings in public duty and constitutional violations. It is not a substitute for resolving commercial or professional contract disputes. The bench stated, “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.”
Case Background
Advocate Sunit Kumar Agarwal, formerly an empanelled counsel for PNB, sought the High Court’s intervention to recover his professional fees, which he claimed were pending. Initially quantified at ₹6.80 lakh, his claim was later increased to ₹10 lakh, purportedly due to newly discovered bills.
The single judge had dismissed his writ petition in April 2024, refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction in what was a contractual dispute. Agarwal’s appeal hinged on the argument that his dues were undisputed and that he delivered satisfactory legal services over the years. He further alleged that certain bank officials demanded a 40% commission to release his dues.
Bank’s Counterclaims
In response, PNB stated that while some bills had been settled, others were contested due to alleged deficiencies in Agarwal’s services. The bank’s position was that the matter involved disputed claims that could not be resolved through writ proceedings.
More Read
Division Bench’s Observations
The Division Bench reiterated that Article 226, which governs writ jurisdiction, can only address contractual disputes if there is an unequivocal admission of liability alongside egregious arbitrariness infringing Article 14, which concerns equality and non-discrimination. “When the respondent/bank raises questions regarding the performance of a service, the matter loses its public law character and enters the domain of private civil obligations,” the court noted.
The Court found that the issues raised, including accusations of bribery and service deficiencies, were unsuitable for resolution under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Agarwal was advised to pursue the matter in a competent civil court.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The Court advised Agarwal to file a civil suit where both parties could present detailed evidence and witness testimonies. The court also directed that the time spent in writ proceedings be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a civil suit. Agarwal represented himself, while Advocate P Raghunath of TS Gopalan & Co represented PNB.
