Skip to content


Sarat Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Biraj Mohun Chuckerbutty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Cal77(1),68Ind.Cas.451
AppellantSarat Chandra Chatterjee
RespondentBiraj Mohun Chuckerbutty
Excerpt:
costs - taxation--appeal preferred in case where none allowed--appeal, dismissal of--counsel's fees, taxation of--refresher, if allowable--rules and orders of the original side, calcutta high court, chap xxxvi, rule 57. - .....7, only the fee to one counsel should have been allowed on taxation. against the discharge of the rule, an appeal was preferred. no appeal in fast lay and the appeal was ultimately dismissed, but, having regard to the provisions of chapter xxxv , rule 57 (a), it seems to me that if an appeal had lain only the fees of one counsel would have been allowable on taxation unless the court otherwise ordered and it seems to me to follow, under the circumstance, viz, of no appeal lying, that similarly the fees of only one counsel should be allowed.2. consequently, i think that fees of two counsel in the appeal court have been wrongly allowed. similarly, i think, that no refresher should have been allowed. from the table which appears at page 430 of the rules and orders no refreshers are.....
Judgment:

Greaves, J.

1. This is an application to review a taxation by the Registrar. The facts are as follows;--A Rule was obtained under the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court, viz., under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, That Rule was discharged and it appears to me having regard to the provisions of Chapter XXXiV of the Rules and Orders of this Court that, under the provision of Rule 7, only the fee to one Counsel should have been allowed on taxation. Against the discharge of the rule, an appeal was preferred. No appeal in fast lay and the appeal was ultimately dismissed, but, having regard to the provisions of Chapter XXXV , Rule 57 (a), it seems to me that if an appeal had lain only the fees of one Counsel would have been allowable on taxation unless the Court otherwise ordered and it seems to me to follow, under the circumstance, viz, of no appeal lying, that similarly the fees of only one Counsel should be allowed.

2. Consequently, I think that fees of two Counsel in the Appeal Court have been wrongly allowed. Similarly, I think, that no refresher should have been allowed. From the table which appears at page 430 of the Rules and Orders no refreshers are apparently allowed under appeals to which Rule 57 applies and for reasons, accordingly, already stated it seems to me that I must apply the provisions of Rule 57 and, this being so, no refreshers are allowable in taxation in respect of costs of appeal. This application, for reasons already stated, succeeds. The applicant is entitled to his costs. Certified for Counsel.

3. Mr. Boy Choud uri,-Costs awarded today to be set off against the costs that I am entitled to obtain from them.

4. Yes.


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