AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 122 words
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.—We think the order under appeal is erroneous. Rule 544 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay does not empower a Judge to make an order on an attorney''s application for taxation of his bill of costs for business not transacted in Court, unless such-order be by consent, and the Court has not, in our opinion, any inherent power on which the jurisdiction can be rested: Sayers v. Walond (1822) 1 S 97.
2.
The order, moreover, cannot be supported by reference to Rule 149 of the Supreme Court Rules, for, even if it be applicable, it provides for a procedure which has not been followed. We must, therefore, reverse the order with costs throughout. Certify for counsel.