<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (12) TMI 291 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101669</link>
    <description>In liquidation and company matters, advocates&#039; 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&#039; 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 A contrary administrative practice could not confer jurisdiction on the Taxing Master, so the bills had to be withdrawn and dealt with by the Company Registrar.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:05:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 291 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101669</link>
      <description>In liquidation and company matters, advocates&#039; 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&#039; 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 A contrary administrative practice could not confer jurisdiction on the Taxing Master, so the bills had to be withdrawn and dealt with by the Company Registrar.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>