Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

[ In the High Court of Bombay, No.. ] 02/03/1921
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Department & Others,   03/09/2014.  

  Sadique Hussain Sheikh Azim Quresh Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Others,   09/09/2010.  

  West Bengal Headmasters Association Versus State of West Bengal,   08/05/1990.  

  Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Carborandum Universal Limited ,   06/03/1985.  

  Tapti Oil Industries & another Versus State of Maharashtra & others ,   18/08/1983.  

  S.K. Oil and Pulses Mill Versus State of Maharashtra & others ,   05/04/1983.  

  Gauri Nath Shastri Versus State of West Bengal,   20/09/1974.  

  Ram Narain Singh Versus State Of Bihar,   19/08/1972.  

  Banarsi Das Ahluwalia Versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi ,   28/09/1967.  

  Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras Versus Sri Venkatesa Mills Limited ,   01/12/1964.  

  Kali Pada Chowdhury Versus Union of India ,   03/05/1962.  


  Vasudevan Namboodiri Versus State of Kerala ,   23/03/1960.  

  Eastern Manganese & Minerals (Private) Ltd. Versus The State of W. B. & Others,   02/09/1959.  

  Bansilal on behalf of Shri Ekling Cotton Ginning and Pressing Versus Commissioner of Income-tax,   11/07/1957.  


  Abdul Kadar Sahib Versus Income Tax Commissioner ,   14/07/1953.  

  Ram Pratap Versus Revenue Minister to the State of Rajasthan,   20/12/1951.  

  Ram Pratap Versus Honble Revenue Minister Rajasthan,   20/12/1951.  

  Commissioner of Police, Bombay Versus Gordhandas Bhanji ,   23/11/1951.  

  Shivcharan Lal Versus State of Rajasthan,   23/01/1951.  

  Louis Dreyfus and Company Limited Versus Province of Madras ,   10/10/1950.  

  Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Superintend Versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ,   27/05/1950.  

  Moti Lal Versus Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh,   11/05/1950.  

  Deonarain Versus Principal Jaswant College Jodhpur,   25/01/1950.  

  Janda Rubber Works Ltd Versus Income-Tax Officer, Salaries Section And Another,   29/12/1949.  


  Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Versus Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Limited,   02/09/1947.  

  Governor General In Council Versus Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In Liquidation),   11/03/1946.  

  Governor-General In Council v/s Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In Liquidation),   11/03/1946.  

  Governor-General In Council v/s Raleigh Investment Company Limited,   27/03/1944.  

  K R M T T Thyagaraja Chettiar Versus Collector Of Madura,   23/10/1935.  

  K. R. M. T. T. Thyagaraja Chettiar Versus The Collector Of Madura ,   23/10/1935.  

  Commissioner of Income Tax v/s C.P.L.E. Chettiyar Firm,   07/03/1934.  

  Tata Hydro-Electric Agency Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay,   15/09/1933.  

  Rangoon Development Trust v/s G. S. Behara and Sons,   14/06/1932.  

  S.S. Subbiah Iyer Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,   20/01/1930.  

  C. Govindarajulu Naidu Versus The Secretary of State for India in Council,   19/10/1926.  

  Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy Versus Commissioner of Income-tax,   02/06/1926.  

  In Re: Sheik Abdul Kadir Marakayar And Co,   11/11/1925.  

  Alcock, Ashdown And Company Limited Versus Chief Revenue Authority Of Bombay,   07/06/1923.  

  Alcock Ashdown Company Ltd Versus Chief Revenue Authority,   02/03/1921.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1921 (23) BOM.L.R 1132"  

    Norman Macleod C J[1] The petitioners applied to this Court for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Co-Revenue Authority to refer a case for the decision of the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act VII of 1918. The application was refused and the petitioners now ask us to grant them leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It has been contended for the opponents that no appeal lies from a decision of the Court refusing to make an order under Section 45.[2] Section 48 says :- Every order under this Chapter shall be executed and may be appealed from as if it) were a decree made in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.[3] Section 49 says :- The costs of all applications and orders under this Chapter shall be in the discretion of the High Court.[4] It would certainly appear at first sight that Section 48 only contemplated that orders directing an act to be done or forborne should be appealable as only such orders could be executed.[5] Section 49 also makes a distinction between applications and orders and it might be inferred that although the costs of an unsuccessful application are within the discretion of the Court an order for payment of costs would not be an order such as was contemplated by Section 48.[6] On the other hand it appears from the provisions of Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 that the decision of a Court refusing an application is called an order. In some cases an appeal will lie from orders refusing relief as well as from orders granting relief in some only from orders granting relief and in others only from orders refusing relief but in Section 104 Clause (g) and in Order XLIII Rule 1(f)(p)(q)(r) and (8) appeals lie from orders under Section 95 and under certain rules without it being stated whether the orders grant or refuse the relief asked for and to take one instance it has been held that an appeal will lie from an order refusing to appoint a Receiver though it is not a final order from which an appeal will lie to the Privy Council: Coundi Dutt Jha v. Pudmanund Singh Bahadur (1895) I-L.R. 22 Cal. 928. In Onslow v. Inland Revenue (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 465.466. Lord Esher M.R. said:- In the present case it becomes necessary for us to determine what is meant by an order and a judgment and to see what is the distinction between them...A judgment therefore is a decision obtained in an action and every other decision is an order.[7] There is therefore- no insuperable difficulty in treating the decisions of the Court in refusing applications under Orders of the first Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code as orders appealable; nor is there any special reason why a party whose application for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act has been refused should not be allowed to appeal. In cases Bombay where an application under the section has been made to a single Judge of the Court and refused appeals have been entertained by a Division Bench without any objection being raised and it seams that the question has only now become of importance because this application having been made in the first instance to a Special Bench an appeal if there is one will have to be made to the Privy Council. The rule will be made absolute.Costs costs in the appeal.Shah J.[8] The only ground upon which this application is opposed is that the right of appeal in proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act is limited to orders contemplated by Section 45 of that Act and that an order discharging the rule or refusing to make the order prayed for is not within the scope of Section 48 of the Act. The section provides that every order made under this Chapter may be appealed from as if it were a decree made in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The words are comprehensive enough to include an order rejecting the application under the Chapter In interpreting a clause relating to the right of appeal I do not see any reason why the narrow construction suggested by the learned Advocate General should be accepted.[9] In oases where an order is made by a single Judge in the first instance discharging the rule appeals have been entertained by this Court without any objection under the Letters Patent I may refer to Rustcm J. Irani v.H. Kennedy (1901) I.L.R. 26 Bom. 396; 3 Bom. L.R. 653. and Haji Ismail v. The Municipal Commissioner of Bombay (1903) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 253; 5 Bom. L.R. 1001. as instances on that point.[10] Further in Zipru v. Hari Supdushet (1917) I.L.R. 42 Bom 10; 19 Bom. L.R. 774. after a consideration of the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure this Court held that an order under the particular rule of the Code then under consideration would include a refusal to grant any relief under that rule.[11] It seems to me that under Clause 39 of the Letters Patent read with Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure we have to see whether it is a decree or a final order from which an appealliec to this Court.[12] The order in question for the purposes of the appeal is a decree as providedin Section 48; and even if there be any doubt about it I think that the order in question would be a final order within the meaning of Section 109(b).[13] In this case as there was no appeal to this Court but as the motion was heard by a Division Bench in the first instance the only condition that requires to be fulfilled under Section 110 relates to the value of the subject-matter and that condition is admittedly satisfied.[14] The applicants are therefore entitled to the certificate that the case fulfils the condition as to valuation.[15] I concur in the order proposed.