Skip to content


Muhammed Alim Oollah Sahib Vs. the Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad162
AppellantMuhammed Alim Oollah Sahib
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India
Cases ReferredJennings v. Johnson L.R.
Excerpt:
suit against secretary of state in council - dismissal of suit with costs--review of taxation--remuneration of the advocate-general and government solicitor by fixed salaries--liability of party condemned in costs. - - assuming, however, that the arrangement is that he should receive a salary and, in addition, the costs recoverable from third parties in those cases in which costs are awarded to government, we are unable to see how that arrangement can affect a third party who is condemned in costs.1. it is by no means clear what are the exact terms on which contentious business is done as between the government solicitor and government. assuming, however, that the arrangement is that he should receive a salary and, in addition, the costs recoverable from third parties in those cases in which costs are awarded to government, we are unable to see how that arrangement can affect a third party who is condemned in costs. raymond v. lakeman 34 reav. 5842. the arrangement does not appear to he contrary to public policy, and there is no act under which it is made illegal.1 jennings v. johnson l.r. 8 c.p. 4253. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is by no means clear what are the exact terms on which contentious business is done as between the Government Solicitor and Government. Assuming, however, that the arrangement is that he should receive a salary and, in addition, the costs recoverable from third parties in those cases in which costs are awarded to Government, we are unable to see how that arrangement can affect a third party who is condemned in costs. Raymond v. Lakeman 34 Reav. 584

2. The arrangement does not appear to he contrary to public policy, and there is no Act under which it is made illegal.1 Jennings v. Johnson L.R. 8 C.P. 425

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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