Full Text
Date of Decision: 10.01.2024
MOHIT KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.01.2022. 1.[1] Via the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has deleted respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the array of parties. The rationale provided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is that no allegation of mala fides or malpractice has been levelled against respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
2. We have heard the appellant, who appears in person. His principal grievance is that when he was taken on the panel of the respondent, i.e., Technology Development Board (TDB), the terms and conditions which operated, were those which are contained in a document issued to him on 31.08.2017. These terms and conditions, according to the appellant, were LPA 132/2022 changed on 01.12.2017 although the earlier terms and conditions obtaining as on 31.08.2017 were reiterated in July, 2018. Notably, the so-called reiterated terms and conditions are found on page 43 of the case file. The document does not bear a date.
3. The relevant part of the corrigendum, qua which the appellant has a grievance, reads as follows:- “1. In partial modification to this office letter of even number dated 31.08.2017 regarding terms and conditions (ToR) of the panel Advocates of TDB, please note the following: The fee structure given at para 2 (Professional Fees) and sub para 6 of page 3 of above ToR pertains to sole Arbitrator. The advocates assigned the arbitration cases will be paid fees as follows:
(i) In the Arbitration matters a. Preparation of
Claim Petition b. Miscellaneous & Subsequent Application/Submission c. Clerkage d. Miscs Expenses e. Arbitration Hearing Rs 7,500/- Rs 3500/- 10% of filing fee As per actual maximum up to 10% of filing fee Rs 1500/- per effective hearing Rs 300/- per noneffective hearing
(ii) Other terms of reference remain same.
2. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority” [Emphasis is ours]
4. A careful perusal of the said corrigendum would show that a change in the fee structure has been brought about by indicating that paragraph 2 and sub-paragraph 6 would apply to a sole arbitrator and not to the panel lawyer. For better appreciation, the relevant part of the original terms of reference are set forth hereafter:- “PROFESSIONAL FEES
Professional Fees shall be paid for all activities undertaken by you as the Advocate for Board, including, but not limited to, conferences, court hearings, legal document review and preparation, legal research, correspondences etc.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Trial Courts/Forums/Tribunals │ │ Sl. No Nature of Service Rate (Rs.) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 6. Arbitration Matter Between Rs 75,000/- to Rs │ │ a. Lump-sum amount will 1,00,000/- (As decided by │ │ be paid for preparing, filing and the Board in each case). │ │ defending petitions / appeals │ │ without any further charges for │ │ appearance in the court. │ │ 10% of professional fee. │ │ b. Clerkage. │ │ As per actuals maximum │ │ upto 10% of professional │ │ c. Misc Expenses fee.” │ │ 5. In sum, it is the appellant’s concern that for arbitration matters, he │ │ was to be paid a lumpsum fee ranging between Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. │ │ 1,00,000/- as per the decision of the TDB. Over and above this fee, 10% │ │ was to be paid as clerkage. Besides this, he was also entitled to claim actual │ │ miscellaneous expenses up to a maximum of 10%. The respondent/TDB, as │ │ indicated in the corrigendum dated 01.12.2017, has amended the terms of │ │ engagement, and indicated that sub-paragraph 6 would apply to the sole │ │ arbitrator, and not to a panel lawyer. As to whether this could have been │ │ done after the appellant was engaged in a matter is to be adjudicated in this │ │ writ petition. │ │ 6. It appears that the original respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have not acted in │ │ their personal capacity and with malice. The corrigendum dated 01.12.2017 │ │ clearly states that it was addressed to the appellant, with the approval of the │ │ “competent authority”. │ │ 7. Given this position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned │ │ LPA 132/2022 Page 4of 5 │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed │ │ By:DINESH KUMAR │ │ Signing Date:12.01.2024 │ │ 20:25:32 │ │ order. │ │ 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. │ │ 9. Pending applications, shall stand closed. │ │ (RAJIV SHAKDHER) │ │ JUDGE │ │ (AMIT BANSAL) │ │ JUDGE │ │ JANUARY 10, 2024/kd │ │ LPA 132/2022 Page 5 of 5 │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
7. Given this position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned LPA 132/2022 Page 4of 5 order.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending applications, shall stand closed.
(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE (AMIT BANSAL)
JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2024