P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This summons raises a point of universal importance to the litigant public and the profession of solicitors in India. The cardinal question on this application is how far, if at all, an attorney's private agreement with client to charge higher fees and remuneration than those obtainable under the Rules of this High Court can prevail. The clear issue in this application is whether such a private agreement supersedes the scale of fees permitted by the High Court. In short the point is if such private agreement gives the attorney immunity from taxation of his fees according to the Rules of this Court. The attorney in this case has charged and obtained from his client fees amounting to Rs. 1,73,033-6-0 under an alleged private agreement. The client considers such fees to be excessive or exorbitant and wants them to be taxed according to the scale laid down by the High Court. The attorney resists on the ground of this private agreement, and claims by virtue thereof exemption from such taxation. No attorney has claimed such privilege before in the history of this High Court. I am not aware of any attorney elsewhere in India has claimed similar privilege.
(2.) The applicant Bhogilal Hargovindas Patel, a director of Renwick & Co. Ltd., has taken out this summons for an order upon his solicitors Messrs. Sandersons & Morgans directing them to prepare and submit a proper bill of costs for all works done by them in connection with or relating to the litigation mentioned in the petition both in and outside the Court for taxation and for investigation and determination of proper charges by the Taxing Officer of this Court. The summons also asks for an order that the Taxing Officer do tax such costs in accordance with the Taxation Rules of this Court and certify what should be due to or from either party in respect of the said hills. The respondent is a firm of solicitors Messrs. Sandersons and Morgans. No actual order for payment is sought on this summons.
(3.) The dispute between the client and the solicitors arises in respect of four bills. The first bill is dated 16-8-1950 for the sum of Rs. 7526-7-0 covering a period from 16-9-1949 to 31-7-1950. This bill shows in-packet costs amounting to Rs. 7250/- and out-of-pocket costs Rs. 276-7-0. The second bill is dated 20-6-1951 No. 1754-/51 for the total sum of Rs. 33,910-1-6 composed of in-pocket costs amounting to Rs. 3410-1-6 and out-of-pocket costs amounting to Rs. 30,500/-. The second bill covers a period from 1-8-1951 to 30-4-1951. The third bill is dated 29-9-1951 No. 2588/51 for the sum of Rs. 1,26,001-0-6 composed of in-pocket costs amounting to Rs. 36,800/- and out-of-pocket costs Rs. 89,201-0-6. This third bill covers a period from 30-4-1951 to 15-9-1951. The fourth bill is dated 25-3-1952 No. 711/52 amounting to Rs. 5597-13-0 being composed of in-pocket costs amounting to Rs. 3000/- and out-of-pocket costs amounting to Rs. 2597-13-0. The fourth bill covers a period from 2-10-1951 to 11-2-1952. The total amount of the solicitors' four bills of costs as aforesaid amounts to Rs. 1,73,035-6-0. The client contends that these charges are grossly excessive, unfair and unreasonable. All payments in connection with these bills have been made by the client in circumstances which I will discuss later in this judgment.;