73 of 1974 H. Parekh and Miss Maniu Jetley, for the Appellant K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, for the respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8 10 1974 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal NO.
1317 of 1975.
Since the bills remained unpaid, the respond ents obtained on February 8, 1972 an order from the Prothon otary of the High Court directing the TaXing Master to tax the bills The appellants appealed against the order of the Prothono tary by way of Chamber Summons which was dismissed by the Chamber Judge on October 26, 1972 with liberty to the Taxing Master to decide whether respondents were entitled to be remunerated on the Original Side scale of fees, as between an Attorney and.
As regards the remaining three items, namely the suit on the Original Side, the probate proceedings in the Satara Dis trict Court and the miscellaneous work done in the mofussil, the Court following the decision in Nowrojis case held that the appellants were entitled to have their bill taxed in regard to these items by the Taxing Master of the Original Side, although it related to work done in the mofussil.
Thereafter, they submitted three bills to the appellants for their companyts and remuneration.
S. Nariman and B.R. Aggarwal, for the intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. A question of practical importance companycerning the dying profession of Solicitors arises in this appeal by special leave.
Certain properties belonging to appellants were attached by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in execution of a decree passed by a Court in Bellary.
