Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
GOUR CHAND MALICK - Appellant
Versus
PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK - Respondent
Original Suit 298 Of 1937
Decided On : APRIL 7, 1949
Taxation - Fees - Receiver's costs - Counsel's fees - Chap. 36 of the Original Side Rules - Implied retainer - Consent of client - Taxation of costs incurred by attorneys for the Receiver Gour Chand Mullick - Fees disallowed by the Taxing Officer - Consent in writing - Power of the Court to allow fees greater than the maximum authorized by the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The matter concerned the taxation of fees paid to attorneys and counsel in a mtge. Suit. The Taxing Officer disallowed certain fees and raised two points for determination: (1) Whether the costs incurred by the attorneys for the Receiver could be taxed without a specific order from the Court, and (2) Whether certain counsel's fees, disallowed by the Taxing Officer, could be taxed without the written consent of the client.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the costs of the Receiver could be taxed based on an implied retainer and directed the Taxing Officer to act accordingly. The Court also allowed certain counsel's fees, despite the absence of written consent, citing the power of the Court to allow fees greater than the maximum authorized by the Rules when the client's consent to such payment is proved.
Issues: The issues involved the taxation of costs incurred by attorneys for the Receiver and the disallowance of certain counsel's fees by the Taxing Officer due to the absence of written consent from the client.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court implied a retainer for the costs incurred by the attorneys for the Receiver based on the client's acquiescence and adoption of the proceedings. The Court also held that the absence of written consent did not preclude the taxation of counsel's fees, as the Court had the power to allow fees greater than the maximum authorized by the Rules when the client's consent to such payment was proved.
Final Decision: The Court ordered the taxation of the costs incurred by the attorneys for the Receiver and allowed certain counsel's fees to be taxed, directing the Taxing Officer to act accordingly. The resps. were entitled to retain their costs out of the estate of Gour Chand Mullick.
( 1 ) THIS is a taxation matter coming on a Chamber Summons sent to me for disposal by way of transfer from the list of my learned brother Banerjee as question of taxation of fees paid to him as counsel has been raised in this appln.
( 2 ) THE matter arises out of a mtge. Suit No. 298 of 1937 Gour Chand Mullick v. Praduymna Kumar Mullick. In that suit pltf. Gour Chand Mullick was appointed a Receiver. Pltf. Gour Chand Mullick employed Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co , as the attorneys to act in that suit and signed a warrant of attorney in their favour. He also employed his said attorneys to act for him in his capacity as Receiver but he did not sign any fresh warrant of attorney as such receiver.
( 3 ) TWO points arise for determination on this appln. : (1) The Taxing Officer by his report dated 14-2-1949 has held that the costs incurred by Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. , as Attorneys for the Receiver cannot be taxed unless there is a proper order of the Ct. directing such taxation and from whom and from what estate that costs will come and has held that the Taxing Officer cannot act on an implied retainer without a specific order to do so. (2) The Taxing Officer has also disallowed two items of Counsel's fees: (a) he has disallowed 5 G. Ms. out of 10 G. Ms. paid to Mr. B. C. Ghosh, Counsel briefed on 4-1-1940 in respect of an appln. made in Chambers on behalf of the pltf. Gour Chand Mullick for payment to him as Receiver a certain sum of money. He has disallowed this item on the ground that there is no written consent of the said Gour Chand Mullick for payment of a fee of 10 G Ms. which was in excess of the maximum provided by the Schedule fixed in the Table of Fees given under Rule 32 (4) of the Taxation Rules under chap. 36 of the Original Side Eules of this Ct. (b) he has disallowed fees of 13 G. Ms. (10 G. Ms for the hearing and 3 G. Ms. for the consultation) being fees for hearing of the suit paid to Mr. S. N. Banerjee (Jr.) Counsel on 5-4-1938 Mr. Banerjee was briefed on the express instruction of the said Gour Chand Mullick at the hearing of the suit before Lort-Williams J. The case was called on and part heard on 5-4-38 and then adjourned till 26-4-38 when the brief was withdrawn from him on the express instructions of the said Gour Chand Mullick and made over to Counsel Mr. N. C. Chatterjee. This item of fees was also disallowed on the ground that there was no written consent of the said Gour Chand Mullick to pay two fees which taken together were in excess of the maximum fees as provided by the table of fees shown under chap. 36, Rule 32 (4 ). (3 ). I propose to deal with the first point as to whether I should issue necessary directions for taxation of the Receiver's costs. That Gour Chand Mullick as Receiver employed Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. as his attorneys is to my mind beyond doubt. The letter of 28-4-1941 addressed to the attorneys Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. by one S Chatterjee who was a constituted attorney for the pltf. Gour Chand Mullick (as will appear from various proceedings affirmed by him as such) and who signed the letter for the pltf. Gour Chand Mullick is in the following terms. "dear Sirs, myself v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, receiver's Account. I send herewith the Account Book and Statements including Vouchers. Please file the same and do the needful. "
( 4 ) IN pursuance of such direction contained in the letter, Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. acted as the Receiver's attorneys and the said Gour Chand Mullick received the benefit of the services of such attorneys. The question therefore is whether the costs of the Receiver could be taxed although Gour Chand Mullick as Receiver did not sign a Warrant of Attorney and whether having regard to the fact that Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. actually acted as attorneys for the said Receiver and which Receiver received the benefit of the services of Messrs. P. I. Mullick and Co. , attorneys and whether such costs could be taxed on th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
