Privy Council(1928) 06 PRI CK 0007

Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani and another vs The Tata Industrial Bank, Ltd. and others

Privy Council · Decided on 21 June 1928 · Citation: (1928) AIR(PC) 238

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lancelot Sanderson, Blanesburgh, Shaw, JJ.
CASE NUMBER
Privy Council Appeal No. 94 of 1926

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 286 words

Lord Shaw

This is an appeal with reference to the taxation of costs. This Board is not a taxation tribunal. It only deals with such matters by way of appeal from the judgment of the Registrar upon items to which objection was taken before him. With regard to such items, he exercises his discretion and he gives effect to the authorized scale of fees and to modern practice. If he errs in any particular an appeal may lie to this Board - arare occurrence; but apart from such an appeal this Board will not interpose. It is accordingly clear that if fresh points of objection to the costs are stated before this Board they cannot be entertained. The appellant has been heard in person and their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the objections taken before the Registrar were justly and with great propriety adjudicated upon by that officer. Accordingly the appeal with respect to the taxation of costs is dismissed.

There has been a further endeavour by two petitions to reopen the merits of this appeal. These petitions deal with matters already fully considered and disposed of on a previous petition after judgment. It is to be noted further that they also call in question the correctness of the judgment itself. On a previous occasion the Board listened to a lengthy argument going so far as even to impeach the jurisdiction of this tribunal, before which the appellant had appeared in person and argued his case at great length. The indulgence granted to the appellant cannot be further extended. In their Lordships'' opinion the Registrar rightly rejected the petitions, ''which are an abuse of the process of the Board, and the motions are accordingly dismissed.