Summary Judgment Denied Where Claims for Unpaid Professional Legal Fees Require Evidentiary Proof of Terms and Services

The Plaintiff, an advocate and Cost and Management Accountant, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2.60 crores towards professional fees for services rendered to the Defendants from 2002 to 2021

The Plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for hourly consultation fees, appearance fees, and drafting charges

The Defendants contended that there was no written agreement, the Plaintiff was not enrolled as an advocate until 2005, and that his role was limited to that of a junior counsel or a friend assisting in litigation

The Plaintiff filed I.A. 38753/2024 under Order XIII-A of the CPC, seeking a summary judgment on the grounds that the Defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC on the ground that the Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim

2. Whether the dispute qualifies as a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Order XIII-A of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), which allows for summary judgment if a party has "no real prospect of succeeding" and there is "no other compelling reason" for a full trial

The court relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited v. DDA (2026), which caution against conducting "mini-trials" and mandate that courts consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial

It further referenced Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019), establishing that summary judgment is appropriate only when the court can reach a fair determination without the need for oral evidence

The Court observed that the Plaintiff’s claim is based on an alleged oral agreement, WhatsApp chats, and self-generated charts regarding hours worked

It reasoned that these materials are not "admissions" and their veracity must be tested through cross-examination to ascertain the context and truth of the professional engagement

The Court found that the Defendants raised triable issues by questioning the Plaintiff's professional status between 2002-2005 and the nature of his services (junior assistant vs. lead strategist)

Since the Plaintiff failed to produce a written contract or undisputed evidence of the fee structure, the court concluded that the defense was not a "moonshine" or "fanciful" prospect, but one requiring a full trial to weigh credibility and draw reasonable inferences

The Court declined to rule on whether legal services qualify as a "commercial dispute" at this interlocutory stage, leaving it for later adjudication

The suit was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar on July 23, 2026, for further proceedings