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

1922 Supreme(SC) 11

Shew Darshan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Partabgarh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
India Office, Rogers and Nevill, Barrow, De Gruyther, Hyam

Viscount Cave:-

Their Lordships have considered the arguments addressed to them in support of these appeals, but they sea no reason whatever for differing from the careful judgment of the Judicial Com missioners, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that these appeals fail and should be dismissed with costs.

It is desirable to add a few words of comment in this case. When the record originally came to this country it con tained an enormous mass of wholly irrele vant and unnecessary matter. Under directions given in the Privy Council Office no less than 781 pages were omitted from the record before it was put together for the use of the Board. On looking through what is left it is not improbable that even more of the matter printed here might have been dispensed with. If the decision of the Board had been in favour of the appellants, directions would certainly have been given which would have com pelled the appellants in any event to pay a large part of the costs of printing the record; but as the order of the Board is that they pay all the costs of the appeals it is needless to make any special order in this case.

Appeal dismissed.

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