%20(1).png)
In re Dara F. Keeka and Mohamedali Nasser Damji, Misc. Civ. Case 12-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn, J.
The executrix of the deceased advocate brought this application for a Bill of Costs for services rendered in a criminal case.
Held: The Bill of Costs was filed under section 62 of the Advocates Ordinance, Cap. 341, for “contentions proceedings.” Although that term is not defined, it is clear that it relates only to civil actions, and does not apply to remuneration in respect of services in criminal proceedings. [Distinguishing In re Jackson, (1915) I.K.B.371.] The Court stated, obiter, that in the absence of any written agreement as to remuneration, the matter “perhaps could be regarded as one of reasonable remuneration on an implied promise – Sib Kishore Ghose v. Manik Chandra Nath (1916) A.I.R. Calcutta 669.” Application dismissed.
%20(10).png)
%20(28).png)
%20(28).png)
%20(1).png&description=In re Dara F. Keeka and Mohamedali Nasser Damji, Misc. Civ. Case 12-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn, J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.