Summary
Certain properties belonging to the appellants were attached by the City Civil Court in Bombay in execution of a decree. The appellant engaged the respondent firm of Solicitors who by Vakalat executed in their favour by the appellants agreed to act, appear and plead for them in the City Civil Court. The respondents took out three Chamber Summonses on behalf of the appellants for raising the at- tachment. Thereafter, they submitted three bills. Since the bills remained unpaid, they obtained an order from the Prothonotary of the High Court directing the TaXing 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 respondents 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 applicable 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 appellants contended: 1. The Solicitors' bill for cost and remuneration in respect of the work done by them in the City Civil Court cannot be taxed by the Taxing Master of the Original Side, High Court.2. The bill in any event cannot be taxed according to the scale of fees applicable on the original side as between 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, 1948 as well and the rules framed by the Bombay High Court under section 2 24 ( 1 ) (d) under the Government of India Act, 19 3 5.Dismissing the appeal,HELD: 1. Rule 569 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay (Original side) 1957, authorises the Taxing Master to tax the bills of cost on every side of the High Court except the Appellate side of the High Court and in the Insolvency Court. All other bills of cost of attorneys shall also be taxed by him when he is directed to do so by a judge's order. There is no justification for the appellants' con- tention that "other bills of cost" must 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 has 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 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 consist- ently taken the view that the Taxing Master has Jurisdiction to tax attorneys bills of cost in relation 8-436SC1/77 352to the professional services rendered by them whichever be the court in relation to which the services are rendered except the Appellate side of the High Court, in regard to which an exception has been expressly carved out by the rule. [354 G-H, 355 A-G]Nowroji Fudumli Sirdar v. Kanga & Savani, 28 Born. L.R.384, Chitnis & Kanga v. Wamanrao S. Mantri, 46 Bom. L.R. 76 and M/s. Pereta Fazalbhoy & Co. v. The Rajputana Cold Stor- age & Refrigeration Ltd., 65 Bom. L R. 87 approved.2. The preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the Legal Practitioners Fees Act 1926 shows that the Act was passed in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Indian Bar Committee that in any case in which a Legal Practitioner has acted or agreed to act he should be liable to be sued for negligence and be entitled to sue for his fees. The Indian Bar Committee recommended by para 42 of its report that the distinction relating to suing for negligence and being sued for fees was not of great impor- tance since suits by or against Legal Practitioners in re- spect of fees and the conduct of cases were extremely rare.But it was necessary to provide that in any case in which a Legal Practitioner had acted or agreed to act he should be liable to be sued for negligence and be entitled to sue for his fees. The definition of Legal Practitioner in the 1926 Act is the same as in the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (which includes an attorney). Section 3 of the Act of 1926 provides that any Legal Practitioner who acts or agrees to act for any person may by private agreement settle with such person the terms of his engagement and fees to be paid for his professional services. Section 4 of the Act pro- vides that any such Legal Practitioner shall be entitled to institute and maintain legal proceedings for the recovery of any fee due to him under the agreement or if no such fee has been settled a fee computed in accordance with the law for the time being in force in regard to the computation of the cost to be awarded to a party in respect of the fee of his Legal Practitioner. It may be that if an attorney institutes a suit he may be governed by section 4 but it really confers an additional right on the Legal Practitioner to institute a suit and cannot be construed as detracting from any other right which he may possess in regard to the taxation and recovery of his fees. [358 G-H, 359 A-B, F-H]3. The High Court was in error in observing that alterna- tively there was an apparent conflict between section 4 of the 1926 Act and the original side rules relating to the taxation of an attorney's bills of cost. Bearing in mind the true object and purpose for which the 1926 Act was passed and the drive of section 4, there is no conflict, apparent or real between the 1926 Act and the High Court Rules of 1957. [360 D-E]4. The rules framed by the High Court under section 224(1)(d) of the 1935 Act, are rules for fixing and regulat- ing the fees payable as costs by any' party in respect of the fees of his adversary's attorney. These rules according to their very terms have nothing to do with the taxation of any attorney's bill of cost as between himself and .his own client. [360 F-G]5. The combined effect of section 4 of the 1926 Act and the Rules framed by the High Court under section 224(1)(d) is that if an attorney who has appeared or acted for his client in the City Civil Court sues his client for fees he cannot recover in the suit anything more than what is per- missible under the Rules framed by the High Court under section 224(1)(d). However, that do not affect the right of an attorney to have his bill taxed by the Taxing Master on the original side scale. [361 C-D]6. Section 18(2) of the Bombay City Civil Courts Act.1948 provides that in respect of suits transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court costs incurred in the High Court till the date of the transfer of the suit are to be assessed by the city Civil Court in such manner as the State Government may after consultation with the High Court determine by rules. Rule 2 framed under section/8(2) pro- vides that even as regards the fees of attorneys the Regis- trar of the City Civil Court is given the Vower to tax and allow all such costs and out of pocket expenses as shall have been properly incurred by an attorney upto the date of transfer of the suit. The rule further provides that after the date 353of the transfer such fees shall be taxed and allowed as in the opinion of the Registrar are commensurate with the work done by the advocate having regard to the scale of fees sanctioned for the advocates in the City Civil Courts Rules.The said rule, applies only to transferred suits. It has no application to the suits and proceedings instituted in the City Civil Court after 148. [361 D-H]M/s. Sandersons & Morgans v. Mohanlal Lalluchand Shah,A,I.R. [1955] Cal 319 distinguished.7. The Taxing Master, however, before allowing the cost claimed by the attorney from his client must have regard to the fact that the attorney has appeared in a subordi- nate court and to the scale of fees generally prevalent in that Court. [363 G-H]The Court observed that power similar to the power of taxation of a bill costs between the advocate and client which is found in Supreme Court Rules, 1966, should be conferred on appropriate officers of the Court subordinate to the High Court. Such a power may enable the presiding Judge to control the professional ethics of the advocates appearing before them more effectively than is possible at present. [362 A-G]See the full content of this document
Extract
Moti Natwarlal & Ors. VS. Raghavayya Nagindas & Co.
PETITIONER: MOTI NATWARLAL & ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: RAGHAVAYYA NAGINDAS & CO.DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1977BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.SHINGAL, P.N.CITATION: 1977 AIR 1778 1977 SCR (3) 351 1977 SCC (2) 761ACT: Bombay High Court original side Rules 1957--Rules 569, 573---Whether a Solicitor's bill of cost for work done in court subordinate to High Court can be taxed by the Taxing Master of High Court--Whether it can be taxed on the origi- nal side scale--Legal Practitioners' Fees Act 1926--Section 4--Section 224 (1)(d) of Govt. of India Act 1935--Rules framed thereunder--Bombay City Civil Courts Act 1948--Section 18(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Rules 1948.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NO. 1317 of 1975.(From the Judgment and Order dated 8-10-1974 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 73 of 1974)P.H. Parekh and Miss Maniu Jetley, for the Appellant S. K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, for the respondent.F.S. Nariman and B.R. Aggarwal, for the intervener.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byCHANDRACHUD, J. A question of practical importance concerning the dying profession of Solicitors arises in this appeal by special leave. The question is whether the bill of costs of a Solicitor or an Attorney who has rendered profes- sional services to his client in the City Civil Court can be taxed by the Taxing Master, Original Side, Bombay High Court, and if so, whether it can be taxed on the Original Side scale. The dual system which was prestigiously in vogue in Bombay since the inception of the Bombay High Court has been abolished with effect from January 1, 1977 and there- fore the question is not of growing importance. All the same, though the question will by and by cease to have the importanc...
See the full content of this document
If you are already a vLex customer, access here