Matubhai Jameitram And Anr. vs The Custodian Of Evacuee Property, ... on 10 October, 1957
In the words of Chagla C.J., as mentioned in his judgment in Basudeo v. Vachha and Co., .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Documents citing
Basudeo Ramgovind vs Vachha & Co. on 5 August, 1954
The Union Of India (Uoi) vs The Official Assignee Of Bombay on 10 December, 1970
37. A decision in Basudeo Ramgovind v. Vachha & Co. (1954) 56 Bom. L. R. 1186 was relied on by Mr. Mody. That was also a case where the plaintiff's attorneys had taken out a chamber summons seeking to have a lien and a charge, In that case there was also a positive finding given that the plaintiff had colluded with the opposite party in order to defeat the rights of his solicitor. Chief Justice Chagla found as follows (p. 1144) :
Arvind N. Savani vs Maganlal Savani & Ors on 10 September, 2012
24. The case of Basudeo Ram Govind V. Vachha & Co. AIR
1955(4) Bom. 126 related to a solicitor seeking to proceed against
the client of the opposite party with whom his client sought to settle
the dispute without the assistance of the solicitor and before payment
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:05:30 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order
10 CHOL. No.559_2012
of the fees of the solicitor. Though the solicitor was held entitled to
claim the amount deposited in the Court which was to the credit of
the suit, he was held not entitled to proceed against the opposite party
simplicitor upon the settlement of the suit by his client with the other
side in the absence of collusion between the parties. In Paragraph 14
of the Judgment, to which my attention was drawn by counsel on
behalf of the firm, Chief Justice Chagla enumerated the various
facilities which the court granted to a solicitor as its officer; his costs
could be taxed, he could get a pay order from the chamber Judge
which he could be executed as a decree. The Court gave its own
officer who is the solicitor "equitable interference" by the Court. That
would be the equitable jurisdiction exercised by the Court to grant
leave under Order 3 Rule 4(2) of the CPC. In exercise of such
equitable jurisdiction the Court may allow the solicitor to recover the
fees even from opponent but only when collusion between those two
parties to deprive the solicitor of his claim of costs was seen or if the
solicitor had given notice to the other party in that behalf. Upon the
abolition of the dual system (which was then prevalent) the solicitor
would be left with neither of these remedies. He would require to file
a suit against the client to recover his costs. It is in this regard that
the leave to be granted under Order 3 Rule 4(2) of the CPC would
assume importance. The Court would protect its officer against his
client seeking the discharge if his fees are not paid. That would be the
only protection now left to a firm of advocates representing the
litigant in this Court.
1