Advocates Must Approach Civil Court For Recovery Of Fees From Clients, Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that disputes relating to repayment of pending professional fees are not public in nature and assume the character of private civil disputes. The court thus held that an advocate cannot file writ petitions for recovering such pending professional fee from client. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331] The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that a writ was an extraordinary remedy which was designed to correct constitutional overreaches, failure of public duty, and arbitrary use of state power. The court added that it could interfere in contract matters only when there was glaring arbitrariness and an absolute admission of liability. “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. For a court to step into the realm of contract under writ jurisdiction, the appellant must demonstrate an absolute, unambiguous admission of liability by the respondent, coupled with shocking arbitrariness that offends the sense of justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by Sunit Kumar Agarwal, who was an empanelled lawyer for Punjab National Bank. Agarwal had approached the High Court, by way of a writ petition, seeking a direction to the Bank to pay his outstanding professional fees and expenses, which were quantified at Rs 6,80,412- and subsequently enhanced in the appellate proceedings to Rs 10,00,628/-. The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge, against which the current appeal was filed. Agarwal submitted that the outstanding dues were undisputed and that he had rendered services to the absolute satisfaction of the bank. He argued that the delay in payment was due to administrative malice, as some bank officials were demanding 40% commission for releasing the dues. He argued that the bank was an instrument of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and could not act arbitrarily. The bank, on the other hand, submitted that undisputed bills had already been settled and the other claims were disputed. It was further argued that there was deficiency in service which would make the claim a private contractual dispute. The court noted that since the bank had disputed the claim, the matter lost its public law character and entered the domain of private civil obligations. The court thus opined that the single judge had rightly dismissed the plea. The court also pointed out that Agarwal was not without a remedy and had merely knocked on the wrong judicial door. The court thus granted liberty to Agarwal to establish his claims and agitate his grievances before the competent civil court. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Sunit Kumar Agarwal Appearing in person Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Raghunath for M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co Case Title: Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 Case No: WA No 1750 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Advocates Must Approach Civil Court For Recovery Of Fees From Clients, Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Advocates Must Approach Civil Court For Recovery Of Fees From Clients, Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers