Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhupendra Kumar Bhatnagar vs Vijaya Bank on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13376/2018
Bhupendra Kumar Bhatnagar S/o Late Shri V.k. Bhatnagar, Aged
About 66 Years, B/c Kayasth, 182-C Shakti Nagar, 6Th C Road,
Paota, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Vijaya Bank, Through Its Chairman And Managing
Director, Head Office At 41/2 Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bengaluru (Karnataka)
2. Vijaya Bank, Branch Jodhpur, Station Road, Jodhpur
Through Branch Manager.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.D. Bohra for
Mr. P.R. Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
08/11/2021
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 J.P. Joshi, Advocate Vs. Jai
(Downloaded on 09/11/2021 at 08:14:55 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-13376/2018]
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. 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
(Downloaded on 09/11/2021 at 08:14:55 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-13376/2018]
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 abovesaid 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. 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
(Downloaded on 09/11/2021 at 08:14:55 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-13376/2018]
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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
59-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
