TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondent. The principal grievance of the Appellants is that the Impugned Judgment has incorrectly accepted the version of the Respondent in absence of any written agreement/mandate between the parties regarding the fees to be paid to the Respondent for the professional services. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 3. Respondent is a practicing advocate. In the year 2016, the Respondent began providing professional legal assistance to Appellant No. 1 company engaged in commercial activities and classified as a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise. 4. Initially, the services rendered pertained to taxation matters; however, over time, the Respondent also began assisting in recovery actions against the Appellant No. 1's debtors, particularly under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC]. 5. The relationship between the parties remained amicable till the year 2020. The Appellants claim that, up until that point, there had been a consistent course of conduct whereby the Respondent raised invoices immediately upon rendering legal services, and such invoices were settled, generally within a period of seven days. It is stated that no disputes ever arose either in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o written agreement/mandate between the parties stipulating the fees or terms of payment. It was further submitted that the decree has been passed in favour of the Respondent without assigning any cogent reasoning while awarding the claimed amount. 13. It was submitted that the services rendered by the Respondent such as an issuance of four demand notices, drafting of a claim form, and reviewing of certain emails and a settlement agreement had already been paid for by way of a cash payment of Rs. 50,000/-, which had been mutually agreed upon orally at the time of engagement. It was argued that this payment was made during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Respondent's request. The Invoice raised by the Respondent, nearly eleven months after the completion of the alleged services, was not only belated, but also exorbitant and mala fide in nature. It was submitted that in the past, for similar services, the Respondent was compensated at a significantly lower rate approximately Rs. 12,500/- per notice, whereas the invoice in question has charged Rs. 50,000/- per notice, which is inconsistent with the established course of dealing between the parties. 14. It was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made a cash payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent has sought a dismissal of the present Appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 19. The core question for determination in this appeal is whether the Impugned Judgment and Decree directing payment of professional fees of Rs. 13,50,000/- passed in favour of the Respondent is sustainable in law and fact, in absence of written agreement/mandate between the parties. 20. The Impugned Judgment and Decree has considered the documentary evidence annexed with the pleadings as well as the oral evidence of the Plaintiff (Respondent herein) and Defendants' (Appellants herein) witness, examined as PW1 and DW1 respectively. The exhibits (Ex.) filed by the Plaintiff before the learned Commercial Court are as under- Exhibit P1 Copies of emails sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Exhibit P2 Copies of demand notices sent by the Plaintiff to corporate debtors under the IBC Exhibit P3 Minutes of Meeting dated 27.01.2020 along with withdrawal letters of the demand notices Exhibit P4 Defendant's letter dated 10.12.2020 addressed to the Plaintiff responding to his reminder Exhibit P5 Legal no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporate Debtor/ Matter Work Done by the Respondent 1. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. M/s Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd. Drafting and dispatch of two demand notices under IBC, 2016 Legal advice, vetting of Memorandum of Understanding and Withdrawal Letters during settlement proceedings 2. M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd. Drafting and dispatch of a demand notice under IBC, 2016 3. M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Drafting and dispatch of a demand notice under IBC, 2016 4. M/s Tecpro Systems Ltd. Drafting and re-filing of a claim form before liquidator under IBC 5. General tax advisory and consultations (VAT/CST/GST) General tax advisory on taxation matters 24. It is an admitted position that apart from the Invoice relied upon, there is no evidence on record to prove any mandate assigning a specific value to each component of the service rendered. In the absence of any such supporting material, Respondent's case rests solely on the Invoice and his testimony as PW-1 before the learned Commercial Court. 25. The entire sum of Rs. 13,50,000/-, which has been decreed in full, was claimed under a single consolidated Invoice covering all of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no cavil that the work as mentioned in Invoice was undertaken by the Respondent, however the Respondent has failed to prove the quantum of fees claimed. The Appellants consistently disputed the quantification of the amount, and the burden was on the Respondent to prove that the amounts mentioned in the Invoice were agreed upon by the Appellants. 29. In absence of any written communication, approval, confirmation or agreement from the Appellants accepting the amount of fee to be paid for the assignment in question, Ex. P1 to P3 merely indicated the nature of work undertaken such as drafting notices and vetting documents, but did not evidence any agreed fee or mandate from the Appellants. Thus, the entire case of the Respondent hinged upon unilateral determination of quantum of fees to be paid by the Appellants. 30. The learned Commercial Court has rightly rejected the Appellants' claim of having paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash for work related to the present dispute due to the absence of any supporting documentation. However, the Respondent's claim for the fees in absence of any documentary evidence of agreed mandate to substantiate the quantum of fees to be payable for the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus, committed an error. 36. Accordingly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commercial Court is unsustainable in the absence of any cogent proof by the Respondent to prove his claim. The evidentiary burden in a suit for recovery lies squarely upon the Plaintiff, and in the present case, that burden remains inadequately discharged by the Respondent being the original Plaintiff. The learned Commercial Court erred in decreeing the full claim without the Respondent having led any evidence to establish the quantum. The absence of such material proof has rendered the decree unsustainable in law. 37. However, considering the fact that the Respondent had provided the services to the Appellants, based on the documentary evidence on record the following fee is quantified for payment to the Respondent: Entity/ Matter Fee Component Amount Basis Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. and Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd 2 demand notices at Rs. 12,500/- each + advisory for settlement, meetings, and drafting of document Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 1,25,000/- Notices valued as per Bill No. 101 dated 26.03.2019; advisory valued by referring to B....