Skip to content


Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Sheth Chimanlal Kalidas and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPrivy Council
Decided On
Case NumberPrivy Council Appeal No. 48 of 1940 (From Bombay)
Judge
Reported inAIR1944PC32
AppellantSheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai
RespondentSheth Chimanlal Kalidas and Others
Advocates:Sir Thomas Strangman and R.T.J. Gibson, for Appellant; J.M. Parikh and V.K. Krishna Menon, for Respondents. Solicitors for Appellant, Lattey and Dawe; Solicitors for Respondents, H. Shephard.
Excerpt:
lord atkin: their lordships are unable to grant this application. they have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte, and, wherever he could satisfy their lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt, be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again; but the present case is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. the high court from which there was the appeal after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction, and the board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the high court and had come to an opposite.....
Judgment:

Lord Atkin:

Their Lordships are unable to grant this application. They have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte, and, wherever he could satisfy their Lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt, be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again; but the present case is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. The High Court from which there was the appeal after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction, and the Board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the High Court and had come to an opposite conclusion. It is not suggested that there is anything which could be said to the Board, if they did grant a further hearing, which had not been considered by the Board in giving their judgment on the previous hearing. In those circumstances it seems to their Lordships that it would be improper to cause the parties to have another hearing which could only have exactly the same result. Therefore, their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this application should be refused with costs.

Application refused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //