Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
In Re: Beer Nursing Dutt vs Unknown on 24 June, 1897
Equivalent citations: (1897) ILR 24 Cal 891
Author: Jenkins
Bench: Jenkins


Jenkins, J.

1. This application is by way of objection to the taxation of a bill of costs on the ground that the costs of a second Counsel should not have been allowed. The case in which two Counsel were employed was in certain Insolvency proceedings and, as I learn from the statement of Counsel, the. client by whom these Counsel were employed was charged with collusion amounting to fraud.

2. In the exercise of his discretion the Taxing Master considered that the case was one in which it was proper to allow the costs of a second Counsel. I have been unable to see in the argument addressed to me anything to lead me to suppose that this discretion was wrongly exercised.

3. I therefore hold that the objection was ill-founded, and the exceptions will be disallowed with costs.

4. Attorney for Koosom Koomary Dassee: Messrs. Dignam & Co.

5. Attorney for the Creditors: Babu G. C. Dhur.

C. E. G.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

114 queries in 0.477 seconds.