Skip to content


Keshav Govind Joshi Vs. Jamsetji Cursetji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom557
AppellantKeshav Govind Joshi
RespondentJamsetji Cursetji
Excerpt:
pleader and client, costs between - act i of 1846, section 6--quantum meruit. - charles sargent, c.j.1. the subordinate judge is wrong in thinking that the pleader is only entitled to one-fourth fee under section 6 of act i of 1846-gangji vithal v. sitaram shridhar 9 bom, h.c. r 33 . the pleader, in the absence of an agreement, is entitled to a quantum meruit, which ought to be determined with reference to all the circumstances of the case. the court in assessing the quantum may be guided by the percentages laid down by law for the regulation of costs between party and party, but is not bound to adopt that guide where the circumstances of the case would render it unjust to do so. see the judgment in the above case and authorities referred to.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in thinking that the pleader is only entitled to one-fourth fee under Section 6 of Act I of 1846-Gangji Vithal v. Sitaram Shridhar 9 Bom, H.C. R 33 . The pleader, in the absence of an agreement, is entitled to a quantum meruit, which ought to be determined with reference to all the circumstances of the case. The Court in assessing the quantum may be guided by the percentages laid down by law for the regulation of costs between party and party, but is not bound to adopt that guide where the circumstances of the case would render it unjust to do so. See the judgment in the above case and authorities referred to.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //