9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the objection raised by the appellants was considered by the learned Single Judge. Analysis: The judgment involved a case where the appellants raised objections related to their entitlement of fee and commission as an Advocate from a chit fund company. The learned Single Judge framed specific issues regarding the entitlement of commission, retainer fee, and fees for services rendered. However, the Single Judge held that the questions could not be addressed at that juncture and left it open for the appellants to obtain a decree towards the fee. The Commission was deprecated in the judgment, leading to the filing of appeals. The appellants argued that there was no agreement regarding the Advocate fee or commission, emphasizing a disputed plea raised in the counter-affidavit. They contended that there was no finding on this disputed plea, and the respondent did not seriously deny it. The appellants highlighted the absence of a specific issue framed on this aspect and questioned the sustainability of the plea without any reasoning provided in the judgment. In light of the arguments presented by the appellants, the High Court decided to allow the appeals. The matters were remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The Court directed the Single Judge to give notice and opportunity to both sides, allowing for the framing of appropriate issues on the objections raised by the appellants. Additionally, the Court permitted an inquiry and the presentation of evidence by both parties to support their positions. Overall, the judgment focused on the need for a thorough consideration of the objections raised by the appellants regarding their entitlement to fee and commission, emphasizing the importance of proper framing of issues and conducting a fair enquiry with the opportunity for evidence presentation from both sides.
|
