Case: Reginald Edward Negus &amp; Others Vs. Official Liquidator &amp; Another

Prothonotary, Master and Assistant Master, and such other officer as may be authorised by the Chief Justice to perform all or any of the duties assigned to the Registrar under the these Rules...."5. It is, in our view, clear that by the order dated 23rd June, 1983 the learned Acting Chief Justice authorised the Taxing Master to perform the duty of taxation of bills of costs assigned to the Registrar under Rule 340 of the Company (Court) Rules. 6. Rather than send the matter back to the learned Company Judge now to consider what is properly the subject matter of the Company Application taken out by the said attorneys, we have decided, with the consent of Counsel, to consider the matter ourselves.7. Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules states that the practice and procedure of the Court shall apply to all proceedings under the Companies Act and under the Companies (court) Rules. Rule 339 expressly deals with the taxation of costs in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and states that the costs of all proceedings under the Companies Act and the Companies (Court) Rules in these High courts shall be taxed in accordance with the rules and the practice and procedure of these Courts. Rule 342 provides much the same thing in regard to other High courts. Rules 356 speaks of taxation between advocate and client and sub-rule (6) makes it clear that it shall not apply to the taxation of a bill of costs as between an advocate employed by the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator, which shall be taxed, subject to any order of the Court, according to the rules regulating taxation of costs between party and party. 8. Now, the only provisions that can govern the taxation of bills of costs are contained in the Original Side Rules, 1957. They are Rules 599 and 600. They read thus :"599. In dealing with fees or allowances, which are discretionary, the Taxing Master, in exercise of such discretion, shall take into consideration the other fees and allowances to the Attorney and Counsel, if any, in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies, the nature or importance of the suit or matter, the amount involved, the interest of the parties, the fund or persons to bear the costs, the general conduct and costs of the proceedings and all other circumstances." "600. The Taxing Master shall not allow as Instructions for Brief any sum exceeding Rs. 1,000 unless otherwise ordered by the Court in(a) Short causes.(b) Appeals from the decision of a Judge in any matter when only one Counsel is allowed.(c) Long causes set down as undefended. (d) Long causes in which the opposite party does not enter an appearance and in which an ex-parte decree is obtained. (e) Appearances for any formal party who only appears to submit to the order of the Court and to ask for costs. (f) Matrimonial Suits.(g) Hearing on further directions and costs.(h) Hearing on Commissioners Report and on exceptions to the Commissioners Report. (i) Chamber matters adjourned into Court.(j) Notices of Motion."9. It is true that Rule 600 applies only in respect of bills of costs for work done prior to 31st December 1976. It is also true that Rule 600 relates in terms only to suits, appeals and interlocutory and subsequent proceedings therein and does not cover proceedings under the Company law. Under Rule 600 the Taxing Master may allow as instructions for brief a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/- if so ordered by the Court. Rule 600 is preceded by Rule 599 whereunder the Taxing Master is obliged, in dealing with fees or allowances which are discretionary, to take into consideration the various matters therein specified. We think that it is necessary that some parameters must be specified within which the Taxing Master may consider bills placed before him for taxation in relation to work done under the Company law. Rules 599 and 600 read together provide such parameters. We therefore, think that Rules 599 and 600 read together must apply to the taxation of bills of costs relating to company matters. 10. In the said Company Application in respect of which the bill of costs before us was lodged the hearings spanned 5 days and took about 20 hours. This is, in our view, an appropriate case where the instruction item in the bill of costs may be allowed in excess of the sum of Rs. 1,000/-, due regard being had to the factors set out in Rule 599. 11. We are told that there are similar bills of costs in regard to work done by advocates and attorneys for the Official Liquidator which are awaiting the disposal of the present appeal. It would not, in our view, be advisable to hold here and now that in all these matters a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/- should be allowed as instructions for brief. We, therefore, direct the Official Liquidator to make a report in each such matter to the learned Company Judge setting out details of the volume of work done in that matter by the Advocate concerned, the period of time that was occupied in the hearing, in conferences, etc. The Official Liquidator shall give to the Advocate concerned notice of the hearing of such report. The Company Judge shall, after hearing the Official Liquidator and the advocate concerned, decide whether a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/- should be allowed in the particular matter as instructions for brief. The bill of costs shall then be taxed accordingly. If the Company Judge does permit the instruction item to exceed Rs. 1,000/-, the Taxing Master shall decide what is payable in respect thereof having regard to the factors set out in Rule 599. 12. In Company matters that come hereafter it would be convenient if the Court disposing of the same should itself certify whether or not the instruction item should exceed Rs. 1,000/- and the Taxing Master shall tax the bill of costs accordingly in the manner hereinabove indicated.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. It is, in our view, clear that by the order dated 23rd June, 1983 the learned Acting Chief Justice authorised the Taxing Master to perform the duty of taxation of bills of costs assigned to the Registrar under Rule 340 of the Company (Court) Rules.Rather than send the matter back to the learned Company Judge now to consider what is properly the subject matter of the Company Application taken out by the said attorneys, we have decided, with the consent of Counsel, to consider the matterthink that it is necessary that some parameters must be specified within which the Taxing Master may consider bills placed before him for taxation in relation to work done under the Company law. Rules 599 and 600 read together provide such parameters. We therefore, think that Rules 599 and 600 read together must apply to the taxation of bills of costs relating to companyis, in our view, an appropriate case where the instruction item in the bill of costs may be allowed in excess of the sum of Rs.due regard being had to the factors set out in Rulewould not, in our view, be advisable to hold here and now that in all these matters a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/should be allowed as instructions for brief. We, therefore, direct the Official Liquidator to make a report in each such matter to the learned Company Judge setting out details of the volume of work done in that matter by the Advocate concerned, the period of time that was occupied in the hearing, in conferences, etc. The Official Liquidator shall give to the Advocate concerned notice of the hearing of such report. The Company Judge shall, after hearing the Official Liquidator and the advocate concerned, decide whether a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/should be allowed in the particular matter as instructions for brief. The bill of costs shall then be taxed accordingly. If the Company Judge does permit the instruction item to exceed Rs.the Taxing Master shall decide what is payable in respect thereof having regard to the factors set out in Rule 599.In Company matters that come hereafter it would be convenient if the Court disposing of the same should itself certify whether or not the instruction item should exceed Rs. 1,000/and the Taxing Master shall tax the bill of costs accordingly in the manner hereinabove indicated.