Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. has held that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), a statutory authority, is legally obligated to pay the pending legal fees for services rendered by an advocate who had represented it in over 590 cases. The Court directed the NCTE to clear the outstanding dues, including partial payments, across multiple cases listed in the petition, and also imposed costs of ₹50,000 to be paid to the petitioner. The Bench specifically permitted the NCTE to seek clarification on certain cases within two weeks, but required full compliance within two months from the receipt of the judgment.

The petitioner, Mathew B. Kurian, an advocate and son of the late V.M. Kurian, filed the writ petition seeking payment for unpaid legal fees amounting to ₹12,11,770. The late V.M. Kurian was appointed as Standing Counsel for the NCTE in 2000 and represented the agency for nearly two decades. After his passing in June 2018, the petitioner communicated the pending claims and submitted the related case files and bills. These submissions included detailed statements of appearances across 590 cases.

Also Read: "A Person Once Declared a Foreigner Cannot Claim Citizenship Based on NRC Inclusion"; Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal's Order Declaring Appellant as Foreigner

Despite these communications and the delivery of files to the newly appointed counsel in July 2018, the payments remained unsettled. The petitioner contended that the NCTE had not disputed the bills or performance of services and asserted that delays had persisted even though the agency had financial capacity to clear the dues.

The third respondent representing the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE submitted that payment was subject to submission of detailed classifications for each case, such as effective and non-effective hearing dates, case status, and other data under new guidelines (Exhibit R3(b)) issued in December 2017. The NCTE stated that payments would be made upon compliance and subject to fund availability.

An interim order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition directing payment at ₹2,250 per appearance. Though the NCTE appealed (W.A. No. 1435/2019), the appeal resulted in continuation of the interim order, and the matter returned to the single bench for final hearing.

The NCTE raised multiple objections based on case-specific grounds, presented in tables:

• Table A listed 10 cases where NCTE was not a party.

• Table B included one case of duplicate billing.

• Table C cited discrepancies in bill dates preceding case disposal.

• Table D claimed prior payment (partially or fully).

• Table E cited absence of certified judgment copies.

• Table F raised the issue of missing case records.

• Table G claimed lack of appearance by the advocate.

The petitioner admitted the correctness of objections in Tables A and B and agreed that no fees were due for those cases. However, he contested all other objections, maintaining that services were rendered, and dues remained unpaid. He submitted that bills under Table C pre-dated judgment only due to part-payments during pendency, and judgment copies for Table E could be supplied upon request. He further asserted that case records cited in Table F had been forwarded and clarified that the matter in Table G was part of a larger batch of disposed cases.

The petitioner also distinguished between bills raised prior to the issuance of Exhibit R3(b) and agreed to comply with those guidelines for any post-2017 cases only.

The Court recorded the relevant Bar Council of India Rules, noting that: “An Advocate is bound to accept any brief... at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case... An Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements, once accepted, without sufficient cause...”

The Bench interpreted the advocate-client relationship as a binding contract: “The Advocate has to be compensated for the time, skill and effort, and when a fee is stipulated and accepted by both parties, the client is legally obligated to pay.”

The Court held that even where no fixed fee was agreed, a reasonable fee is claimable: “Lawyers providing specialised intellectual and legal services are entitled to a fee consistent with their standing... Non-payment or arbitrary denial of fees leads to exploitation of legal professionalism...”

Referring to precedents, the Court stated: “The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of Court...”

It restated the principle that: “Judicial review remains warranted in cases of perceived arbitrariness, regardless of contractual complexity or factual disputes.”

The Court held that compelling advocates to file civil suits for recovery would: “...impose an unwarranted burden on legal professionals... undermining the very essence of legal practice...”

On facts, the Court noted: “There is no dispute that there was an engagement by NCTE. There is no dispute that 590 cases have been disposed of. There is no allegation that the lawyer concerned had not appeared or that the cases had not been disposed of.”

It further stated: “Only ten cases are shown where the NCTE is not a party. Under such circumstances, there is no justification at all for non-payment of the agreed fees.”

As regards the application of guidelines under Exhibit R3(b), the Court clarified: “The same will apply to those cases after the issuance of the guidelines and not to the ones filed before that.”

On the validity of petitioner’s claim for Tables C to G, the Court held: “There is nothing on record or any proof furnished by NCTE to contradict the petitioner’s contention of non-receipt of fees and hence, the amounts remain due...”

Also Read: Presence Alone Not Enough To Prove Guilt Under Unlawful Assembly | Identification Of Accused Was Doubtful | Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings In CAA-NRC Protest Case

The Court directed the National Council for Teacher Education to pay the legal fees for all the cases listed in Tables C, D, E, F, and G within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

It was further directed that the NCTE may, if required, seek clarification regarding the cases in Table E within two weeks from the date of judgment. In such a scenario, the petitioner is to respond within the subsequent two weeks.

The Court additionally ordered that ₹50,000 be paid to the petitioner as costs, citing the blameworthy conduct of the respondents in failing to settle the dues in a timely and justified manner.

The writ petition was thus allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Jacob Sebastian, Advocate

For the Respondents: Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, Standing Counsel, NCTE

Case Title: Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:35819

Case Number: WP(C) No. 34764 of 2018

Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.

[Read/Download order]