https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530 An attorney's application for payment of taxed costs under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII was held maintainable despite lapse of time and a limitation objection. The Court reasoned that a suit for recovery being potentially time-barred did not automatically defeat a lien or set-off claim, and that Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was concerned with extinction of rights in possession cases, not a personal debt of this kind. It further held that an alleged special bargain did not bar the summary remedy where there was no bona fide substantial dispute requiring trial. On substantially undisputed facts, the Court exercised its summary jurisdiction and allowed payment. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 1920 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530 An attorney's application for payment of taxed costs under Rule 59 of Chapter XXXVIII was held maintainable despite lapse of time and a limitation objection. The Court reasoned that a suit for recovery being potentially time-barred did not automatically defeat a lien or set-off claim, and that Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was concerned with extinction of rights in possession cases, not a personal debt of this kind. It further held that an alleged special bargain did not bar the summary remedy where there was no bona fide substantial dispute requiring trial. On substantially undisputed facts, the Court exercised its summary jurisdiction and allowed payment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Dec 1920 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272530