Skip to content


M. Iswardas Vs. G.D. Chandip and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.267
AppellantM. Iswardas
RespondentG.D. Chandip and ors.
Excerpt:
costs - administration suit--application by creditor--creditor's costs--practice. - - the 2nd defendant has failed as regards a very large part of her claim including the jewels and i direct her to bear her own costs including costs to counsel in the reference......debts in fall, as is the case, here--is to give the plaintiff costs out of the estate as between party and party only. sae the judgment of sterling, l.j. in in re new zealand midland railway (1886) 32 ch. d. 357, aid i do not think there are sufficient grounds for departing from that practice and giving costs out of the estate as between attorney and client. as pointed out by the lord justice, the court may in a proper case make an order that the difference between the plaintiff's costs as between attorney and client and the costs allowed him out of the estate as between party and party may be ordered to be borne rateably by the whole body of creditors, who have profited by his exertion, but i cannot pass such an order without notice to the creditors whom it may affect, and i give the.....
Judgment:

Wallis, J.

1. The practice in England in a creditor's action for administration--where the assets prove to be sufficient for the payment of the debts in fall, as is the case, here--is to give the plaintiff costs out of the estate as between party and party only. Sae the judgment of Sterling, L.J. in In re New Zealand Midland Railway (1886) 32 Ch. D. 357, aid I do not think there are sufficient grounds for departing from that practice and giving costs out of the estate as between attorney and client. As pointed out by the Lord Justice, the Court may in a proper case make an order that the difference between the plaintiff's costs as between attorney and client and the costs allowed him out of the estate as between party and party may be ordered to be borne rateably by the whole body of creditors, who have profited by his exertion, but I cannot pass such an order without notice to the creditors whom it may affect, and I give the plaintiff leave to apply if so advised for such an order within fourteen days upon notice to the creditors who were not represented at the argument before me. As regards the 1st defendant, who is the legal representative of the deceased, I see no sufficient reason for refusing him his costs out of the estate as between solicitor and client according to the usual practice. The 2nd defendant has failed as regards a very large part of her claim including the jewels and I direct her to bear her own costs including costs to counsel in the reference.


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