0

Madras High Court directs govt to Appoint Nodal Officer to deal with engagement and payment of fees of Advocate General, Additional AG’s.

Blog, blog , , , ,

TITLE: The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Ramasamy.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Writ Appeal No.1102 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu.

Introduction:

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Pattern to set aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.25027 of 2011 and allow the writ appeal. The Court issued the directions while disposing of a plea filed by former TN Additional AG S Ramasamy in 2011, seeking payment of ₹1.95 crores due as his professional legal fees for having appeared in several matters for the State during his tenure as the Additional AG between the years 2006 and 2011. While Ramasamy’s fee was finally paid by the TN government earlier this year following the High Court’s intervention, the Court said there was an urgent need to have a system in place to avoid such delays in future. A bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and K Kumaresh Babu also directed that such nodal officer must be responsible for looking after the professional fees claims made by the AG, Additional AG or other senior law officers of the State, and should ensure that their fees are paid within 30 days of raising such claims.

Facts:

The respondent was the writ petitioner, who is a practising lawyer since 1972 and on 10.06.2006, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General -II of the State of Tamil Nadu and he was subsequently designated as a Senior Advocate and later on 25.09.2009, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General – I. In that capacity, he appeared in several cases for the State of Tamil Nadu before this Court as well as before the Madurai Bench of this Court between 2006 – 2011. He had claimed his eligible fee per day/per case basis and thereafter, he resigned the post of Additional Advocate General – I after the assembly elections results were announced. Therefore, from the year 2006 to 13.05.2011,the respondent writ petitioner submitted various bills for his appearance as Additional Advocate General – II and I in respect of various departments and according to the respondent or petitioner, the outstanding amount is Rs.1,95,01,622/-(One crore Ninety Five lakhs one thousand six hundred and twenty two only). Since that amount had not been given in spite of several representations, he approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus. A learned Judge, who heard the matter allowed the writ petition by order dated 15.11.2011, whereby, the learned Judge directed the appellant/department herein to sanction and pay the eligible fee payable to the respondent/petitioner considering the claim made by him within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent/State in the writ petition has filed the present writ appeal.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Bench also took note of a letter written to the State government by the current TN Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram on June 8 this year seeking a uniform system to engage State law officers and to ratify and pay their fees within a fixed time limit. The AG said that such uniform system was required to streamline engagement of law officers and payment of their fees to avoid embarrassments such as that in the present case. The Court agreed and said that the State government must consider the suggestions made by the AG. It then also issued a specific direction for the appointment of the Nodal officer.

  • In this regard, a Nodal officer in the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary of the State Government shall be specifically nominated for the purpose of dealing with the requests made on behalf of the various departments for nomination of Advocate General and Additional Advocate General for the appearance in important cases by or against the State Government and its Departments.
  • The Nodal Officer shall also consider and look after the professional fee claim made from time to time by various law officers starting from Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, State Government Pleader, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader, Government Advocate, etc, and those professional bills, which are made/claimed by such law officers shall be examined and disposed either by way of making the payment or if any ineligible amount is claimed, as per the conditions of appointment of law officers, that can also be stated to the law officers, either way, the claim should be disposed of within a period of 30 days from the date of such claim is made by the law officer concerned.
  • In this regard, in order to assist the Nodal Officer, minimum secretarial staff shall be provided by the State Government. The Nodal Officer shall be in constant touch with all other departments of the State Government with regard to their requirement of appointment of higher law officers on specific cases as well as for the clarifications, etc., to be ascertained for the purpose of verification and clearing of the fee bills.
  • It is made clear that once the Nodal Officer after thorough consideration and verification, clears the professional fee bill of the law officers, the payment shall be made within 30 days thereafter and it should ensured by the Nodal Officer.

 In order to comply the aforesaid directions necessary Government Order shall be issued by the State Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and a compliance report to that effect shall be filed before this Court on 28.08.2023. With the above directions, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court Tuesday directed the Tamil Nadu government to appoint a nodal officer holding the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary to deal with all requests by the State departments to engage the Advocate General (AG) or the Additional Advocate Generals in important cases before the Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Refuses to Stay Release Of ‘Maamannan’ Movie.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:  Mr. Ramasaravanan               … Petitioner

                                              Versus
                    Udayanidhi Stalin and  Anrs     … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 28.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU 

Citation:  O.A. No.562 of 2023 and A.NO. 3179 OF 2023 in C.S. No. 109 of 2023.

Introduction:

 The Madras High Court has refused to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”.

These applications have been taken out seeking for an interim
injunction restraining from in any manner whatsoever releasing the film
titled as “Maamannan” without completing the shooting schedule and
dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” and also for interim direction to direct
the 1st respondent/ defendant to complete the shooting and dubbing of the
film titled “Angel” so as to enable the applicant/ plaintiff to release the film.

Facts:

The applicant would submit that applicant is engaged in the business of film production and had produced various Tamil Cinematographic films and is a Proprietor of an established banner and has got a very good reputation in the film industry. He would submit that the applicant had entered upon an agreement with the third party for directing a film that is titled as “Angel”, in which the 1st respondent herein was to feature as a lead hero. He would
submit that the arrangement between the applicant and the 1st respondent was an oral arrangement and that an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) was to be paid a remuneration to the 1st respondent. He would also submit that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) had been paid to him as part payment. The shooting was scheduled and would submit that 80% of the work is over and what is left out was the scenes which would have to be shooted to fill up certain gaps and dubbing as regards to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had been elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the election conducted in the year 2021 and that he had also been appointed as a Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu in the year 2022. On his appointment, the 1st respondent had made a declaration in public that “Maamannan” will be his last film which would only mean that he would not act any further film. He would submit that the film “Angel” is in finishing stage and if the 1st respondent did not complete the film.

Issue:

Can the Court entertain an injunction against the third party from implementing their agreement entered upon with the same person with whom the applicant had entered into an agreement?

Legal Analysis:

When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.

Ramasaravanan, in his plea had submitted that he had entered into an agreement with third parties for making the film titled “Angel” and Udayanidhi was to be featured as the lead hero. He added that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000 was to be paid as remuneration to Udayanidhi. He further submitted that a sum of thirty lakhs had already been paid as part payment.

Ramasaravan further submitted that due to covid, the shooting of the movie was stalled and presently 80% of the movie has been completed and only dubbing and shooting of some filler scenes were left. He added that while so, Udayanishi was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2021 and has been appointed as Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu. He submitted that after his new appointment, Udayanidhi announced that he would not act in any movies. He submitted that if the same is to be true, he would suffer a huge loss amounting to twenty five crore rupees and would also affect others involved in the film.

On the other hand, Udayanidhi submitted that he had been paid only five lakh rupees as against the thirty lacks claimed by the producer. He added that though he has said that he would not act in any movies, it would not include dubbing. He added that what the producer was now seeking was a part performance of an oral agreement for which he is attempting to stall an independent arrangement. He added that even otherwise, the producer had sought for an alternate relief of compensation and thus no mandatory injunction was necessary.

The court found favour in these arguments. The court noted that the producer had to first approach the actor for completing the movie and even if the actor refuses, the producer was not without a remedy as he himself had sought for an alternative prayer. The court thus said that it was not inclined to grant injunction and thus dismissed the petitions.

Judgement:

The prayer in the present application is also the prayer in the main Suit, but however with an alternative relief of Rs.25,00,00,000/- as compensation. The applicant himself has admitted in the project of the film titled “Angel”, expenditure is Rs.13,00,00,000/- and expects a sum of
Rs.12,00,00,000/- as project which would entitle him for a compensation ofRs.25,00,00,000/- from the first respondent. It is for the applicant to approach the first respondent to seek his consent for completing the film. If he refuses to complete his part of performance, it does not mean that the applicant is without any relief for the simple reason that he himself had sought for an alternative prayer of compensation of Rs.25,00,00,000/- for the loss that is
incurred by the plaintiff. In view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the direction sought by the applicant

Conclusion:

The Court interpreted the law in the right way and has ordered the refusal to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”in view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement