High Courts(1928) 08 MAD CK 0048

Ramammal vs Vijayaraghavalu Naidu and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 August 1928 · Citation: (1933) ILR (Mad) 1049 : 140 Ind. Cas. 530 : (1932) 36 LW 718 : (1932) 63 MLJ 867

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

1 paragraphs · 100 words
1.

This petition is withdrawn. We very much regret to come to the conclusion that we have no power to grant costs proprio motu. In some ways perhaps it is to be regretted that we have not because a lot of these applications are so thoroughly frivolous - I do not say anything about this one - that I think that the losers ought to" be penalised for vexatious proceedings. However, costs are a creature of statute or statutory rules and in the absence of either in this case, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction to award costs.