A V MOOTHEDAN Vs. OFFICIAL REVEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advocate of this Court, Sri. A.V. Moothedan, raises the question regarding the advocates fee payable to him for certain proceedings under S.4 of the Insolvency Act 1956 for the conduct of which he was engaged by the Official Receiver with the sanction of the court. These proceedings, I am told, ended successfully and the estate gained more than a lakh of rupees. The counter petitioner is the Receiver, District Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) On 5-10-1959, the revision petitioner wrote to the Receiver that the amount involved in the proceedings is about Rs. 1 1/4 lakhs and that the proceedings should be treated as proceedings in an original suit and if fee is calculated on that basis, he will be entitled to Rs. 3000. He also requested in that letter that an initial payment of

(3.) Apparently, the rule referred to is R.30 read with R.12(d)(2) of the rules framed by the Travancore - Cochin High Court under S.16 of the Indian Bar Councils Act XXXVIII of 1926. It is contended before me that R.30 is ultra vires the power of the High Court and should not therefore be considered as limiting the discretion vested in the Insolvency Court to direct payment of a reasonable remuneration to the revision petitioner for the work done by him. S.16 of Act XXXVIII of 1926 reads:-