BILAS SINGH AND CO. Vs. SIKHA RAINI DUTTA
LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 30,1976

BILAS SINGH AND CO. Appellant
VERSUS
Sikha Raini Dutta Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHANLAL SEWLAL V/S. PROBODH KRISHNA SHOME [REFERRED TO]
A.V. SUNDARAMURTHY CHETTIAR VS. S. MUTHIAH MUDALIAR AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.)The Petitioner had engaged Sm. Sikha Rani Dutta, who is opposite party No. 1 in this Rule, as one of its lawyers in an arbitration proceeding against Union of India and also in T.S. No. 33 of 1959 of the Fourth Court, learned Sub -Ordinate Judge, Alipore, which arose out of the said arbitration proceedings. The Petitioner, therefore, filed an execution case for realisation of the sum awarded in the said arbitration proceeding. The Union of India had deposited the decretal dues in the executing Court. The Petitioner, through Sm. Dutta, had filed a petition praying for issue of a payment order in its name. The Court below by its order dated November 15, 1973, had passed an order directing payment of the said award money. But before the said sum was withdrawn on December 1, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application stating that it now wanted to revoke the power executed in favour of Sm. Sikha Rani Dutta in the said Title Execution Case. It, accordingly, prayed that the vakalatnama dated August 1, 1973, in her favour be revoked. On December 4, 1973, Sm. Sikha Rani Dutta filed a statement before the executing Court claiming that Rs. 5,000 was still due as her fees. On December 5, 1973, the executing Court ordered that the decree -holder be permitted to terminate the appointment of Mrs. Dutta as its lawyer subject to payment of her legitimate dues. It, accordingly, directed both the Petitioner and Mrs. Dutta to submit their respective accounts. According to the executing Court, since Mrs. Dutta claimed Rs. 5,000 as her fees, the decree -holder would be entitled to withdraw the decretal amount after leaving a sum of Rs. 5,000 in deposit. The Petitioner did not come up against the said order. On December 12, 1973. Sm. Sikha Rani Dutta filed a statement of her claim. In the meantime, the decree -holder, who is the Petitioner before me, also filed an application before the Court below praying that in the circumstances mentioned in its application necessary orders be passed for payment of the balance sum of Rs. 5.000 which was lying with the Court in terms of the order No. 12 dated December 5, 1973. It may be noted that on December 8, 1973 the Court had already issued the payment order for Rs. 9,19,075 in favour of the decree -holder Petitioner through its lawyer Arun (Kumar Deb. I understand the said sum has been already received by the Petitioner.
(2.)The trial Court by its order No. 21 dated February 11, 1974, refused the prayer of the decree -holder for permission to withdraw the said balance sum of Rs. 5,000. Further, the executing Court fixed March 23, 1974, for hearing in respect of the accounts filed by Mrs. Dutta and the decree -holder Petitioner. The Petitioner has obtained the present Rule against the said order dated February 11, 1974.
(3.)In this case the subject -matter of dispute is the sum of Rs. 5,000 claimed by Mrs. Dutta as her professional fees and which is disputed by the Petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the present Rule is maintainable before the Single Bench. The rest of the amount involved in the execution case is not in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application in question should have been valued at over Rs. 5,000.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.