Advocate–client relationship — Professional fees — Proof — Burden
Suit for recovery of professional fees — Plaintiff-advocate failed to place on record invoices forming basis of claim — Admission in cross-examination that invoices not filed — No books of accounts, ledger, or documentary proof produced — Adverse inference under Ss. 106 & 114(g), Evidence Act — Claim rightly rejected.
[Paras 15–16, 34–39, 55–58]
Contract — Authority to act — Advocate undertaking work without instructions
Invoice raised for drafting 31 Notices of Opposition — Admitted position that instructions were withdrawn prior to deadline and work was assigned to another professional — Plaintiff neither filed notices nor proved preparation and forwarding of drafts — No entitlement to fees for work not authorised or undertaken — Claim unsustainable.
[Paras 52–57]
Settlement — Full and final payment — Waiver and estoppel
Plaintiff received USD 18,290 (₹8,37,133.30) and acknowledged payment as covering 73 files — Files returned without protest — No contemporaneous objection raised — Subsequent claim for additional amounts barred by waiver and estoppel.
[Paras 44, 54–58]
Interest — Claim — Proof
Claim for ante-litem interest — No agreement or document showing respondents’ consent to pay interest — In absence of principal liability, claim for interest untenable.
[Paras 15–18, 50, 58]
Defamation — Damages — Proof of publication and injury
Allegations of denigration and defamation based on internal communications and banking correspondence — No defamatory imputation shown — No publication to third parties or evidence of reputational harm — Plaintiff examined no witness in support — Damages for defamation not proved.
[Paras 17, 59–63]
Company law — Directors’ liability — Privity of contract
Company is distinct juristic entity — Directors and officers not personally liable absent privity or specific authorisation — Suit against respondents lacking privity rightly dismissed.
[Paras 12, 19, 49]
First appeal — Section 96 CPC — Interference with findings of fact
Trial Court’s findings based on admissions and documentary record — No perversity or legal error — Appellate interference declined — Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 63–65]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of the Suit
The appellant-plaintiff, an advocate, instituted a civil suit seeking ₹10 lakhs with interest towards alleged unpaid professional fees and ₹10,05,000 as exemplary damages on grounds including defamation, harassment, conspiracy and breach of contract.
[Paras 4–6]
2. Core Monetary Claim
The monetary claim was primarily founded on:
alleged unpaid invoice dated 07-06-2006 for USD 11,625 (31 Notices of Opposition),
alleged short payment of USD 1,995, and
ante-litem interest of USD 3,395.
[Paras 26–28, 50–52]
3. Fatal Evidentiary Deficiency
The Court noted decisive admissions by the appellant that:
the invoice dated 07-06-2006 was not filed on record,
no books of accounts, ledger or audited statements were produced, and
no correspondence disputing the alleged “full and final settlement” was traceable on record.
This attracted adverse presumption under Sections 106 and 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
[Paras 15–16, 34–39, 55]
4. Lack of Authority and Performance
On facts, the Court found that:
instructions to the appellant were withdrawn before the deadline,
another professional was engaged,
the appellant neither filed nor proved preparation and forwarding of draft Notices of Opposition.
Raising an invoice after withdrawal of instructions, without proof of authorised work, did not create liability.
[Paras 52–57]
5. Full and Final Settlement
The appellant acknowledged receipt of USD 18,290 and returned all 73 files without protest.
The Court held that absence of any contemporaneous objection or demand disentitled the appellant from reopening settled accounts.
[Paras 44, 54–58]
6. Claim for Damages for Defamation
The Court held that:
alleged communications relied upon were not defamatory,
there was no evidence of publication or injury to reputation, and
no witness was examined to substantiate defamation.
Accordingly, damages for defamation were rightly refused.
[Paras 17, 59–63]
7. Directors’ Liability and Privity
Reiterating settled company law, the Court held that:
a company acts through its board,
directors are not personally liable in absence of privity or special authorisation.
[Paras 12, 19, 49]
8. Appellate Conclusion
Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence or application of law, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
[Paras 63–65]
Ratio Decidendi
An advocate claiming professional fees must prove invoices, authority to act, and performance of work. Where invoices are withheld, accounts are not produced, instructions are withdrawn before performance, and full and final payment is acknowledged without protest, claims for fees, interest, and damages—including for defamation—are not maintainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment