DE KRETSER J.—North-Western Blue Line and K. B. L. Perera 523
1943Present: de Kretser J. ,
NORTH-WESTERN BLUE LINE, Appellant and K. B. L.PERERA, Respondent.
Case stated Nos. 3,121, 3,122, and 3,123 by the Tribunal of Appealunder the Motor Car Ordinance.
Motor Car Ordinance No. 45 of 193S, s. 4 (6) (c)—Case stated by the Tribunalof Appeal—Notice of case stated to Commissioner of Transport—Taxationof costs of Counsel.
Where in a case stated to the Supreme Court by the tribunal of appeal .under the Motor Car Ordinance the party requiring the- case to bestated filed the case stated at the Supreme Court Registry on June 7,and posted notice of the case stated to the Commissioner of Transporton June 8.
Held; that the party had failed to comply with the requirementsof section 4 (6) (c) of the Motor Car Ordinance.
The practice with regard to the taxing of Counsel’s costs indicated.Cosmos v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (39 N. L. R. 457) followed.
HIS was a case stated in the Supreme Court by the Tribunal ofAppeal under the Motor Car Ordinance.
. N. Nadarajah, K.C. (with him D. D. Athulathmudali), for appellant.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him J. E. M. Obeyesekere), for respondent,
T. S. Fernando, C.C., for the Commissioner of Motor Transport.
"June 16, 1943. de Kretser J.—
Crown Counsel takes a preliminary objection to the hearing of this casestated and the objection is that the party requiring the case to be stateddid not send to the Commissioner the notice required by section 4
'(c) at or before the time when he transmitted the stated case to theSupreme Court. It is admitted that the case was handed in at theRegistry on'June 7 and it is also admitted that the notice was postedon June 8. Crown Counsel submits the envelope which shows that the
1 29 N. L. R. 10.
524HE ARNE J.—Lila Umtna and Majeed.
letter was posted on June 8 and received by the Commissioner on June 9.A similar provision in the Income Tax Ordinance was adjudicated uponby Poyser and Keuneman JJ. in the case of Cosmos v. The Commissionerof Income Tax I see no reason to disagree with that decision. In factMr. Nadarajah frankly admits that it is, against him. It is unfortunate,but the objection has to be given effect to. The case stated is thereforerejected with costs.
With regard to the costs, I understand both from Counsel and fromthe Registrar that as a result of a ruling by this Court in a similar matter,the Registrar would allow Crown Counsel’s costs up to 14 guineas and thecosts of preparing the brief, and in the case of private Counsel wouldallow any sum for which a receipt was submitted together with costs ofpreparing brief. Mr. H. V. Perera for respondent in some cases that weredealt with by me yesterday, very generously offered to limit his client’scosts to Rs. 525. It seems to me that that offer was made in the rightspirit. It is impossible to regard each case from the point of view of theimportance of the point of law argued, and to say that one point of law ismore important than another and it is impossible to assess what financialimplications there are behind the contest. There may be very, large sumsinvolved, and probably there are large sums involved, considering the wayin which these contests are being fought. I think therefore that awardinga sum of Rs. 525" to Mr. Perera’s clients and Rs. 150 to Crown Counselwould not be unreasonable and I so award costs.
Case stated rejected.