Madras High Court: Advocates Must Approach Civil Courts to Recover Unpaid Fees, Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked
The Madras High Court has ruled that advocates seeking recovery of unpaid professional fees from their clients must pursue ordinary civil remedies and cannot invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction for such claims. The Division Bench held that disputes over legal fees arise out of contractual relationships and are private civil disputes, not matters involving public law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Delivering the judgment, the Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary constitutional remedy intended to address failures of public duty, constitutional violations, or arbitrary State action. It cannot be converted into an alternative forum for recovery of money arising from commercial or professional contracts.
The ruling came while deciding an appeal filed by advocate Sunit Kumar Agarwal, who had served as an empanelled counsel for Punjab National Bank. Agarwal sought payment of his outstanding professional fees and litigation expenses, alleging that the bank had withheld dues despite the services rendered. He further claimed that certain officials had demanded an illegal commission for processing his bills.
Punjab National Bank opposed the claim, contending that while undisputed bills had already been settled, the remaining claims were contested due to alleged deficiencies in service. The bank argued that the dispute involved disputed contractual obligations and therefore could not be adjudicated through a writ petition.
Accepting the bank’s contention, the High Court held that once liability itself is disputed, the matter loses its public law character and becomes a purely private civil dispute. The Bench clarified that judicial review under Article 226 is not meant to determine disputed questions of fact relating to contractual payments unless there is an unequivocal admission of liability coupled with manifest arbitrariness violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court emphasized that the advocate was not left without a legal remedy. It granted him liberty to institute appropriate civil proceedings before a competent civil court for adjudication and recovery of the alleged dues. The judgment reinforces the principle that professional fee disputes between advocates and clients are governed by the law of contract and should ordinarily be resolved through civil suits rather than constitutional writ proceedings.
The decision also aligns with earlier judicial precedents holding that the advocate-client relationship is fundamentally contractual in nature. High Courts have consistently maintained that recovery of professional remuneration, even when the client is a public sector undertaking or government entity, does not automatically attract writ jurisdiction unless exceptional public law elements are established.
