LexMOTI NATWARLAL & ORS. versus RAGHAVAYYA NAGINDAS & CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
'
351
MOT! NATWARLAL & ORS.
v.
RAGHA VAYYA NAGINDAS & CO.
March 21, 1977
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Bombay High Court original side Rule." 1957-Rules 569, 573-Whether a
Solicitor's bill of co.<ot for work done in court subordinate to High Court can be
taxed by the Taxing Master of High Court-Whether it can be taxed 01z the
original side scale-Legal Practitioners' Fees Act 1926-Section 4-..Sectian 224
(l)(d) of Govt. of India Act 1935-Rules framed thereunder-Bombay City
Civil Courts Act 1948-Sec.tion 18(2) of the Bon1bay City Civil Court Rules
1948.
Certain properties belonging to the appellants \Vere attached by
the Citv
Civil Court in Bombay in execution of a· decree. The appel1ant engaged
the
respondent firm of Solicitors who by Vakalat executed in their favour by the
appella..nts agreed to act, appear and plead for them in the City Civil c'ourt.
The respondents took out three Chamber Summonses on behalf of the appel-
lants for raising the attachment. Thereafter, they submitted three bills.
Since
the bills remained unpaid, they obtained an order fron1 the Prothonotary of the
High Court directing the Ta~ing Master to tax the bills. The aPpellants filed
an appeal against the order of the Prothonotary which was dismissed by the
Chamber Judge with liberty to the Taxing Master to decide whether the respon-
dents were entitled to be remunerated on the original side scale
of fees
as
between an attorney and client.
The Taxing Master rejected the appellants'
contention and taxed the respondents' bills according to the scale of fees applic-
able on the original side by the High Court. A Chamber Summons filed by the
appellants before a Single Judge was dismissed. An appeal before the Division
Bench by the_ appellants also failed.
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellnnts contended :
1. The $olicitors' bill for cost and remuneration in respect of the work done
by them in the City Civil Court cannot be taxed by the Taxing !\{aster of the
Original Side, High Court.
A
B
c
D
E
2. The bill in any event cannot be taxed according to the scale of fees
applicable on ·the original side as bet\veen an attorney and client, particularly
in view of the provisions contained in the Legal Practitioners' Fees Act, 1926,
Bombay City Civil Courts Act, 1948 and the Bombay City Civil Court Rules,
F
1948 as· well and the rules framed bv the Bombay High Court under section
224(1) (d) under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Dismissing th~ appeal,
HELD : I. Rule 569 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay (Origin.I
side) 1957, authorises the Taxing Master to tax the bills of cost on ev<!ry side of
the High Court except the Appellate side of the High Court and in the Insol-
vency Court. All other bills of cost of attorneys shall also be taxed by hin1
G
when be is directed to do so by a Judge's order. There is no justification for
the apnellants' contention thatl "other bills of cost" mu~t be construed to mean
other bills of cost relating to matters_ on the original side of the High Court.
Rule 573 as amended prescribed a limitation of 5 years· for lodging the bill of
cost for taxation after the disposal of the suit or the proceedings in the High
Court. In respect of matters which are not the subject of any proceedings in the
High Court the attorney ha.;; to lodge his bill of cost for taxation within 5 years
from the completion of the matter.
The necessity for making this provision
arose because rule 568 empowers the Taxing Master to tax the attorneys' bill of
H
cost in all matters except those on the Appellate side of the High Court. The
Bombay High Court, over a long course of years has consistently taken tl1e view
that the Taxing Master has jurisdiction to tax attorneys' bills of cost in relation
8-436SCI/77
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
A
to the_ professiona,I services rendered by them whichever be the court in relation
!O which the sef".1ces are rendered except the Appellate side of the High Court,
in regard to which an exception has been expressly carved out by the 111 le
[354 G-H, 355 A-0]
.
Nowroji Fudumji Sirdar v. Kanga & Savani, 28 Born. L.R. 384, Chitnis &
~
Kanga v. Wanianrao· S. Mantri, 46 Born. L.R. 76 and Mis. Pereia Fazalblzoy &
Co. v. The Rajputana Cold Storage & Refrigeration Ltd., 65 Born. L.R.
87
. B
approved .
c
D
E
F
G
H
. . ·2. The preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the Legal _Prac-
titioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.