https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279013 The Court set aside the Taxing Master's decision and ruled that the applicants, a firm of solicitors, were entitled to profit costs for defending the suit on behalf of the defendants, limited by the rule in Cradock v. Piper. The defendants were not considered express trustees but were in a fiduciary relationship akin to trustees. The Court clarified that the Indian Trusts Act does not apply to public charitable trusts and endorsed the application of English law principles. The applicants' bill of costs was to be taxed to include both out-of-pocket and profit costs, with certain exceptions, to be paid from the charity estate. en-us Wed, 25 Nov 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:30:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279013 The Court set aside the Taxing Master's decision and ruled that the applicants, a firm of solicitors, were entitled to profit costs for defending the suit on behalf of the defendants, limited by the rule in Cradock v. Piper. The defendants were not considered express trustees but were in a fiduciary relationship akin to trustees. The Court clarified that the Indian Trusts Act does not apply to public charitable trusts and endorsed the application of English law principles. The applicants' bill of costs was to be taxed to include both out-of-pocket and profit costs, with certain exceptions, to be paid from the charity estate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Nov 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279013