Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing C. Boggiano And Co. vs The Arab Steamers Ltd. on 21 October, 1915

Chhotalal Mansukhlal vs Someshwar Jivram And Anr. on 10 February, 1937

No doubt, a practitioner was in fact brought from beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, but that fact can have no bearing on the applicability of the item in the table. The attendance at Nadiad of an Advocate from Ahmedabad is not shown to have been necessitated by the nature of the questions involved, or because the Ahmedabad Advocate alone was acquainted with the facts and questions, or by ether similar circumstances. The additional expense incurred may more reasonably be attributed to over-caution: see Rule 562. Reliance was placed on MacIver and Co. Ltd. v. Tata Steamers, Limited (1902) 2 K.B. 184 ; 71 L.J.K.B. 717 ; 87 L.T. 320 ; 5 Q.W.R. 642 ; 18 T.L.R. 653 where the plaintiff's Attorney from Liverpool attended at the examination of a witness whose evidence was essential to the plaintiff's case, and who was examined in London before the trial of the action. The Attorney attended at the examination for the purpose of instructing Counsel. The rule governing the case in England gave complete discretion to the Taxing Master, it being provided that the Taxing Master shall allow all such costs, charges and expenses, as shall appear to him to have been necessary cr proper for the attainment of justice; and it was held that the discretion had been exercised reasonably and within the terms of the rule. In the table by which the present proceedings are governed, there is no provision giving to the Taxing Officer any such wide discretion. On the contrary, the fees for attendance are specifically laid down. There being a fixed fee for such attendance, the Taxing Officer could not tax the costs on any other scale. The Taxing Officer in the present case did not make a reference to the Court under Rule 564. There are no special directions given by the Court under Rule 767, nor are any reasons pointed out how such directions could have been supported, assuming that we could have taken such reasons into account at the present stage. The fee has apparently been fixed in entire oversight of the provisions of the table. For attending the Court at Nadiad, under item No. 55, Rs. 12 J were claimed. The particulars given are:
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1