Taxation of advocates' bills in liquidation matters must follow the Companies (Court) Rules, not administrative practice.

In liquidation and company matters, advocates' bills for work done for the official liquidator must be taxed under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, because the statutory scheme makes the Company Registrar the taxing officer. Section 459 of the Companies Act, 1956 and rule 307 permit court-sanctioned engagement of counsel, and rule 338(2) requires proof of that sanction before bills are allowed. The Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, including rule 600, did not extend to company applications or judges' summons, while rule 604 was confined to work done up to 31 December 1976. A contrary administrative practice could not confer jurisdiction on the Taxing Master, so the bills had to be withdrawn and dealt with by the Company Registrar.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Taxing Master had jurisdiction to tax bills of costs incurred by advocates engaged by the official liquidator in liquidation and company matters, and whether such bills were governed by the old Original Side Rules or by the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, so as to be taxed by the Company Registrar.

Analysis: Section 459 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits the official liquidator, with sanction of the court, to appoint an advocate or attorney to assist in the performance of his duties. Rule 307 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 similarly contemplates court-sanctioned engagement of counsel, while rule 338(2) requires bills of advocates to be allowed only after proof of such sanction. The earlier rule 600 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules limited instructions for brief in specified classes of matters, but company applications and judges summons were not included within its terms, and any contrary practice could not override the rules. Rule 604, read with rules 601 and 602, was confined to bills of costs relating to work done up to 31 December 1976 and could not govern fresh bills for later work. Under the Companies (Court) Rules, the Registrar functions as the taxing officer, and the scheme of the rules showed that taxation in company matters and liquidation proceedings had to be dealt with by the Company Registrar, not by the Taxing Master. The impugned administrative arrangement could not confer jurisdiction on the Taxing Master.

Conclusion: The Taxing Master had no jurisdiction to assess the bills of costs, and the bills were required to be taken up by the Company Registrar for taxation under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

Final Conclusion: The claim succeeded on the jurisdictional question, and the pending bills of costs were directed to be withdrawn from the Taxing Master and dealt with by the Company Registrar.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation and company matters, taxation of advocates' bills must be undertaken by the statutory taxing officer under the Companies (Court) Rules, and a general practice or administrative direction cannot confer jurisdiction on the Taxing Master where the rules do not do so.

---