Case: Moti Natwarlal &amp; Ors Vs. Raghavayya Nagindas &amp; Co

entitled to charge his own client. Similar provision is to be found in England in the Supreme Court Costs Rules, 1959 (see "The Annual Practice 1965, p. 1999/300"). Mr. Nariman who appears on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, Bombay, drew our attention to Rule 29 of the last mentioned rules under which a Solicitors bill can be taxed as between himself and his client. These provisions are on a par with the rules of taxation on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The important point to be noted is that the Rules of the City Civil Court do not, except in regard to suits transferred from the High Court, contain any provision under which an Attorney can have his bill taxed as between himself and his client.18. Perhaps there is good reason for this because though under Section 224(1)(d) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 227(3) of the Constitution, the High Court has got the power to settle tables of fees to be allowed to Attorneys practising in Subordinate Courts, that power has not been exercised by the High Court for the reason, probably, that the Rules of Taxation on the Original Side of the High Court adequately and effectively take care of that matter. The High Court did exercise its powers under Section 224(1)(d) in relation to the City Civil Court but did not in the rules framed in the exercise of that power provided for taxation of an Attorneys bill of costs as between him and his client. It is not too much to suppose that the High Court did not want to do once over again what it had elaborately done while framing the rules on the Original Side, which were in vogue for a large number of years and were working satisfactorily.19. Mr. Parekh sought to derive some sustenance to his argument from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Messrs Sandersons & Morgans v. Mohanlal Lalluchand Shah (AIR 1955 Cal 319 : 59 Cal WN 180) but we find that the question which arose for decision therein was entirely different. The appellants therein, a firm of Solicitor, submitted to the respondents a bill of costs for the work done by them for the respondents on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. The respondents challenged the bill by a Chamber Summons, which the appellants resisted on the ground that there was a private agreement between the parties to pay a particular amount by way of fees and therefore the bill was not liable to be taxed under the Original Side Rules. On a consideration of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, particularly Rules 4 and 74 of Chapter 36, the High Court came to the conclusion that the Solicitors were bound to have their bills taxed according to the Original Side scale, agreement or no agreement. We are concerned in the instant case with a different question under a different set of rules and as pointed out by the High Court, the Calcutta Rules are in material respect different from the Bombay Rules. We must interpret the Bombay Rules on their own terms and decisions on other statutes cannot afford material assistance unless, of course, any principle of general application is laid down.20. We have already mentioned that in Messrs Pereira Fazalbhoy & Co. Mody, J., held that an Attorney was entitled to have his bill taxed on the Original Side scale even in respect of the work done by him outside the High Court. For the various reasons mentioned above we endorse that view.21. Before concluding, we ought to refer to a rather anxious plea made by Mr. Parekh which involves ethical considerations. Counsel urged that it is unfair that for small work done in the City Civil Court Solicitors should be permitted to charge high fees prescribed under the Original Side Rules. We find ourselves unable to share this concern. If anything, Solicitors are subject to he watchful supervision of the High Court wherever they may render professional services. The object of binding the Attorneys to the scale of fees prescribed in the Original Side Rules is not to confer on them any special benefit which is denied to other legal practitioners. The object on the contrary is to ensure that Attorneys shall always be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court no matter whether they have acted on the Original Side or in any Court subordinate to the High Court. The only exception is made by Rule 569 in regard to the work done on the Appellate Side of the High Court which, as indicated earlier, prescribes its own scale of fees as between an Advocate and his client. In fact, we are unable to see why a power similar to the power of taxation of a bill of costs between an Advocate and his client which is to be found in the Supreme Court Rules should not be conferred on appropriate officers of Courts subordinate to the High Court. Such a power may enable the Presiding Judges to control the professional ethics of the Advocates appearing before them more effectively than is possible at present. In this very case, a bill of Rs. 6000 odd lodged by the appellants was reduced on taxation to a sum of about Rs. 850 only. If there were no machinery for taxing the bill, the appellants might perhaps have got off with the demand. We would only like to add that before allowing the costs claimed by an Attorney from his client, the Taxing Master must have regard to the fact that the Attorney has appeared in a Subordinate Court and to the scale of fees generally prevalent in that Court. A judicious exercise of discretion postulates elimination of unfair play, particularly where one party to a transaction is in a position to dominate the will of the other. The client must receive the protection of the Court and its officers whenever necessary.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]Rule 569 of "The Rules of the High Court of Bombay (Original Side), 1957" affords, in our opinion, a complete answer to the appellants contention that the Taxing Master who is an officer of the Original Side of the High Court has no jurisdiction to tax the Attorneys bills in regard to work done by them in matters other than those on the Original Side. Rule 569 occurs in Chapter XXIX of the Original Side Rules under the rubric "The Taxing Office". The Rule reads thus :569. The Taxing Master shall tax the bills of costs on every side of the Court (except the Appellate Side) and in the Insolvency Court. All other bills of costs of Attorneys shall also be taxed by him when he is directed to do so by a Judges order.The Rule consists of two parts of which the first part confers jurisdiction on the Taxing Master to tax the bills of costs on every side of the High Court including bills relating to matters in the Insolvency Court but excluding those on the Appellate Side of the High Court. If the rule were to stop with the first part, it would have been possible to say that the Taxing Master has no jurisdiction to tax the bills in regard to matters outside the High Court. But the second part of the rule puts the matter beyond doubt by providing that all other bills of costs of Attorneys shall also be taxed by the Taxing Master. Itis argued on behalf of the appellants that "other bills of costs" must be construed to mean "other bills of costs relating to matters on the Original Side of the High Court" and bills relating tonon-contentious matters. We see no justification for cutting down the scope of the second part of the rule by putting a limited meaning on words of width used therein. "All other bills of costs of Attorneys" to which the second part of the rule refers must mean all bills of costs of Attorneys other than those which are referred to in the first part of the Rule. That we conceive to be the plain meaning of the particularthe first place, as explained above, the Act of 1926 was passed for an entirely different purpose with which we are not concerned in the present case. Secondly, and that is more important, Section 4 on which the appellants rely deals, as shown by its marginal note, with a limited question viz., the right of a legal practitioner to sue for his fees. It may be that since an Attorney is included within the meaning of the expression legal practitioner, he will be governed by the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act of 1926 if he brings a suit for the recovery of his fees. But we are not concerned in this case to determine the scope and extent of an Attorneys right to sue for his fees. It must further be borne in mind that Section 4, which is in two parts, provides in the first place that a legal practitioner shall be entitled to institute and maintain a legal proceeding for the recovery of any fee due to him under an agreement. This part of the Section confers an additional entitlement on legal practitioners and cannot justifiably be construed as detracting from any other right which they may possess in regard to the taxation and recovery of their fees. Section 4 provides by its second part that if there is no agreement between the legal practitioner and his client in regard to the fees payable to him, he shall be entitled to institute and maintain legal proceedings for the recovery of a fee computed in the manner provided therein. This also is in the nature of an entitlement, the right recognised thereby being the right to bring a suit to recover the fees in the absence of an agreement. Any legal practitioner who wants to enforce the right which is specially created and conferred by the Act of 1926 will have to comply with the conditions on which that right is conferred. When a statute creates a special right, it can only be enforced in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the fees for the recovery of which legal proceedings are brought under Section 4 cannot be any larger than the fees computed in accordance with the law for the time being in force in regard to the computation of the costs to be awarded to a party in respect of the fee of his legal practitioner. But, as we have stated earlier, the provisions of the Act of 1926 are entirely besides the point. They have no bearing on the question whether an Attorney can have his bill taxed by the Taxing Master in respect of the work done by him in courts other than the High Court of Bombay and if so, on what scale.The Bombay High Court in the judgment under appeal thought that there was an apparent conflict between Section 4 of the Act of 1926 and the Original Side Rules relating to the taxation of an Attorneys bill of cots. We would like to make it clear that bearing in mind the true object and purpose for which the Act of 1926 was passed and the drive of Section 4 thereof, there is no conflict, apparent or real, between any of the provisions of the Act of 1926 and the rules of taxation contained in the Original Side Rules of 1957. In that view, it is unnecessary to resort to the principle of harmonious construction which the High Court alternatively relied upon for holding that the Taxing Master has the jurisdiction to tax the respondents bill in the instant case and on the Original Siderules, according to their very terms, have nothing to do with the taxation of any Attorneys bill of costs as between himself and his own client. The rules govern the fees payable by way of costs by any party in the City Civil Court, in respect of the fees of his adversarys Attorney. That is to say, if an order of costs is passed in favour of a party to a suit or proceeding in the City Civil Court, he is entitled to recover from his adversary by way of professional charges incurred by him, the fees computed in accordance with the rules framed under Section 224(1)(d) of the Government of India Act and not what he has in fact paid to his Attorney.The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 60 of 1948, provides by Section 18(1) that all suits and proceedings cognizable by the City Civil Court and pending in the High Court, in which issues have not been settled or evidence has not been recorded shall be transferred to the City Civil Court. By Section 18(2), costs incurred in the High Court till the date of the transfer of the suit are to be assessed by the City Civil Court in such manner as the State Government may after consultation with the High Court determine by rules. Mr. Parekh drew our attention to Rule 2 framed by the Government of Bombay under Section 18(2) but we do not see its relevance on the issue under consideration in the instant case. That rule shows that even as regards the fees of Attorneys. The Registrar of the City Civil Court is given the power to tax and allow all such costs and out of pocket expenses as shall have been properly incurred by an Attorney up to the date of the transfer of the suit. The rule further provides that after the date of the transfer such fees shall be taxed and allowed as in the opinion of the Registrar are commensurate with the work done by the Advocate having regard to the scale of fees sanctioned for the Advocate in the City Civil Court by the High Court. Rule 2, being a rule framed under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1948, governs transferred suits only and it expressly authorises the Registrar to tax the Attorneys bill for the work down in such suits both before and after the transfer of the suit from the High Court to the City Civil Court. There is no corresponding rule which can apply to suits and proceedings instituted in the City Civil Court afterthe Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 came into force and in the absence of such rule, the rules framed under Section 18(2) cannot support the appellants contention. Mr. Parekh also drew our attention to the "Rules of the Bombay City Civil Court, 1948" framed by the Bombay High Court under Section 224 ofthe Government of India Act, 1935 but we see nothing in those rules either which can assist his contention regarding the power of the Taxing Master to tax an Attorneys bill as between himself and his client.17. While we are on this aspect of the matter it would be useful to refer to the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court Rules contain elaborate provisions in Order XLI and Order XLII thereof regarding costs of proceedings and taxation of costs. Rule 13 of Order XLII provides that except as otherwise provided in the Rules or by any law for the time being in force, the fees set out in the Second and Fourth Schedules to the Rules may be allowed to Advocates and Officers of the Court respectively. Rules 23 to 29 of Order XLII deal specifically with Advocate and Client taxation. The Second Schedule contains detailed provisions under which fees are payable to Advocates for various types of professional services rendered by them. Similarly, Chapter 14 of the Appellate Side Rules of the Bombay High Court contains various rules for computing the fees which an Advocate is entitled to charge his own client. Similar provision is to be found in England in the Supreme Court Costs Rules, 1959 (see "The Annual Practice 1965, p.provisions are on a par with the rules of taxation on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The important point to be noted is that the Rules of the City Civil Court do not, except in regard to suits transferred from the High Court, contain any provision under which an Attorney can have his bill taxed as between himself and his client.18. Perhaps there is good reason for this because though under Section 224(1)(d) ofthe Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 227(3) of the Constitution, the High Court has got the power to settle tables of fees to be allowed to Attorneys practising in Subordinate Courts, that power has not been exercised by the High Court for the reason, probably, that the Rules of Taxation on the Original Side of the High Court adequately and effectively take care of that matter. The High Court did exercise its powers under Section 224(1)(d) in relation to the City Civil Court but did not in the rules framed in the exercise of that power provided for taxation of an Attorneys bill of costs as between him and his client. It is not too much to suppose that the High Court did not want to do once over again what it had elaborately done while framing the rules on the Original Side, which were in vogue for a large number of years and were workinga consideration of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, particularly Rules 4 and 74 of Chapter 36, the High Court came to the conclusion that the Solicitors were bound to have their bills taxed according to the Original Side scale, agreement or no agreement. We are concerned in the instant case with a different question under a different set of rules and as pointed out by the High Court, the Calcutta Rules are in material respect different from the Bombay Rules. We must interpret the Bombay Rules on their own terms and decisions on other statutes cannot afford material assistance unless, of course, any principle of general application is laid down.20. We have already mentioned that in Messrs Pereira Fazalbhoy & Co. Mody, J., held that an Attorney was entitled to have his bill taxed on the Original Side scale even in respect of the work done by him outside the High Court. For the various reasons mentioned above we endorse that view.Before concluding, we ought to refer to a rather anxious plea made by Mr. Parekh which involves ethical considerations. Counsel urged that it is unfair that for small work done in the City Civil Court Solicitors should be permitted to charge high fees prescribed under the Original Side Rules.We find ourselves unable to share this concern. If anything, Solicitors are subject to he watchful supervision of the High Court wherever they may render professional services. The object of binding the Attorneys to the scale of fees prescribed in the Original Side Rules is not to confer on them any special benefit which is denied to other legal practitioners. The object on the contrary is to ensure that Attorneys shall always be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court no matter whether they have acted on the Original Side or in any Court subordinate to the High Court. The only exception is made by Rule 569 in regard to the work done on the Appellate Side of the High Court which, as indicated earlier, prescribes its own scale of fees as between an Advocate and his client. In fact, we are unable to see why a power similar to the power of taxation of a bill of costs between an Advocate and his client which is to be found in the Supreme Court Rules should not be conferred on appropriate officers of Courts subordinate to the High Court. Such a power may enable the Presiding Judges to control the professional ethics of the Advocates appearing before them more effectively than is possible at present. In this very case, a bill of Rs. 6000 odd lodged by the appellants was reduced on taxation to a sum of about Rs. 850 only. If there were no machinery for taxing the bill, the appellants might perhaps have got off with the demand. We would only like to add that before allowing the costs claimed by an Attorney from his client, the Taxing Master must have regard to the fact that the Attorney has appeared in a Subordinate Court and to the scale of fees generally prevalent in that Court. A judicious exercise of discretion postulates elimination of unfair play, particularly where one party to a transaction is in a position to dominate the will of the other. The client must receive the protection of the Court and its officers wheneversee no justification for cutting down the scope of the second part of the rule by putting a limited meaning on words of width used therein. "All other bills of costs of Attorneys" to which the second part of the rule refers must mean all bills of costs of Attorneys other than those which are referred to in the first part of the Rule. That we conceive to be the plain meaning of the particularis not possible to accept this submission because even after that Act came into force, the Bombay High Court took the same view as was taken in Nowrojis case and for good reasons which we will expiate while dealing with the appellants contention bearing on the scale of fees according to which the bills can be taxed. The relevant rule, couched in identical language, with which the High Court was concerned from time to time leaves no doubt that the Taxing Master has the jurisdiction to tax all bills of costs of Attorneys, except those in regard to the work done by them on the Appellate Side of the Highfind ourselves unable to share this concern. If anything, Solicitors are subject to he watchful supervision of the High Court wherever they may render professional services. The object of binding the Attorneys to the scale of fees prescribed in the Original Side Rules is not to confer on them any special benefit which is denied to other legal practitioners. The object on the contrary is to ensure that Attorneys shall always be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court no matter whether they have acted on the Original Side or in any Court subordinate to the High Court. The only exception is made by Rule 569 in regard to the work done on the Appellate Side of the High Court which, as indicated earlier, prescribes its own scale of fees as between an Advocate and his client. In fact, we are unable to see why a power similar to the power of taxation of a bill of costs between an Advocate and his client which is to be found in the Supreme Court Rules should not be conferred on appropriate officers of Courts subordinate to the High Court. Such a power may enable the Presiding Judges to control the professional ethics of the Advocates appearing before them more effectively than is possible at present. In this very case, a bill of Rs. 6000 odd lodged by the appellants was reduced on taxation to a sum of about Rs. 850 only. If there were no machinery for taxing the bill, the appellants might perhaps have got off with the demand. We would only like to add that before allowing the costs claimed by an Attorney from his client, the Taxing Master must have regard to the fact that the Attorney has appeared in a Subordinate Court and to the scale of fees generally prevalent in that Court. A judicious exercise of discretion postulates elimination of unfair play, particularly where one party to a transaction is in a position to dominate the will of the other. The client must receive the protection of the Court and its officers whenever