SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1916 Supreme(SC) 30

Bolivar Probate – Appellant
Versus
Divorce, and Admiralty Division. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Thomas Cooper and Co., serving , G. T. Simons, A. B. Marten , C. R. Dunlop, R. Finlay

Lord Parker of Waddington.:—

Where substantial injustice would otherwise result, the Court has, in their Lordships' opinion, an inherent power to set aside its own judgments of condemnation so as to let in bona fide claims by parties who have not in fact been heard, and who have had no opportunity of appearing. This power is discretionary, and should not be exercised except where there would be substantial injustice if the decree in question were allowed to stand, and where the application for relief has been promptly made. In the present case the learned President has refused the relief on the ground of delay, apparently under the impression that the appellants invoked the assistance of the Prize Claims Committee, whereas in fact the papers were sent to that Committee by the Procurator-General. It was not, under the circumstances, unreasonable for the appellants to have awaited the result of what the Procurator-General was doing before instituting further proceedings in the matter.

Their Lordships therefore think that the proper order would be to allow the appeal and remit the summons to the Court below, with leave to the appellants to amend it in such manner as they may be advised,



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top