55 mins ago
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
A senior lawyer represented Madhya Pradesh in the Supreme Court in 2019.
He said the state did not pay him for his work.
The state argued that there was no formal appointment letter.
The Delhi High Court said the state’s officers had arranged for the lawyer to appear.
The court also noted that a senior lawyer’s name can be recorded only through the party’s legal representatives.
It said missing paperwork caused by the state could not be used against the lawyer.
The court awarded the lawyer Rs 78.65 lakh plus interest.
It rejected his separate claim for conference fees.
The Delhi High Court ordered Madhya Pradesh to pay a senior advocate Rs 78.65 lakh plus 9% annual interest.
The advocate said he had not been paid for appearances before the Supreme Court beginning in 2019.
He appeared for Madhya Pradesh on 14 hearing dates in land-acquisition cases.
The court allowed a single appearance fee of Rs 6.05 lakh per recorded hearing but rejected conference-fee claims.
The court said the state must act as a model litigant and could not deny an engagement arranged by its own officers.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Madhya Pradesh, and a senior advocate who represented the state before the Supreme Court.
- What
- The court directed Madhya Pradesh to pay Rs 78.65 lakh with 9% annual interest for the advocate’s recorded appearances.
- Where
- The dispute concerned appearances before the Supreme Court and was decided by the Delhi High Court.
- When
- The appearances took place in 2019; the Delhi High Court issued its order on August 31.
- Why
- The court found that the state had benefited from the advocate’s services and that the absence of a formal appointment order reflected the state’s own internal record-keeping.
Senior Advocate’s Position
Madhya Pradesh’s Position
Whether the advocate was engaged
Senior Advocate’s Position
The advocate’s lawyers said state officials knew he was appearing, his name remained in the Supreme Court’s order sheets, and there was no time for a formal letter because the cases were taken up suddenly.
Madhya Pradesh’s Position
The state argued that its Law and Legislative Affairs Department had never issued a formal appointment order engaging the senior advocate.
Responsibility for payment
Senior Advocate’s Position
The advocate claimed payment for services requested by the state and said he had communicated his fee through the standing counsel before the hearings began.
Madhya Pradesh’s Position
The state’s defence pointed to the absence of formal documentation and disputed the basis for treating the advocate as officially appointed.
Amount payable
Senior Advocate’s Position
The advocate initially submitted 35 fee bills totaling Rs 1.76 crore for conferences and appearances.
Madhya Pradesh’s Position
The court limited the award to a single appearance fee of Rs 6.05 lakh per recorded date and rejected the conference-fee claim.
Key facts
- Amount awarded
- Rs 78.65 lakh
- Interest
- 9% per annum
- Appearance fee allowed
- Rs 6.05 lakh for each recorded hearing date
- Recorded appearances
- 14 dates before the Supreme Court
- Original bills
- 35 bills totaling Rs 1.76 crore
- Conference fees
- The court did not accept the claim for conference fees
- Underlying cases
- Cases concerning interpretation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
Quotes
Delhi High Court
The court, through Justice Sachin Datta’s order, assessed the state’s conduct in the fee dispute.
“The State is expected to be a model litigant. Its defence in these proceedings has instead exemplified bureaucratic passing of the buck, with each department and instrumentality disclaiming responsibility and pointing to another, while the admitted beneficiary of the petitioner’s services declines to pay. Such conduct deserves to be strongly deprecated.”
indianexpress.com
“a senior advocate cannot thrust his own appearance upon a party in the Supreme Court; his appearance can be recorded only through, and upon the instructions of, the Advocate-on-Record of that party”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Rajasthan Bar Seeks Permanent Chief Justice Amid Judicial Dispute
Supreme Court Ends 11-Year Fight, Fines Both Parties ₹5 Lakh
Kerala High Court Rebukes Lawyers in Money Mule Case
Indore High Court Rejects State’s Six-Year-Late Dhar Land Appeal
Punjab Court Imposes Fresh Cost Over 25-Year Pension Delay
Supreme Court Penalizes ‘Luxury Litigation’ for Delaying Genuine Cases
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Haryana sanitation workers’ strike puts BJP government under pressure
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
