Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.

Bombay High Court
Secretary Of State For India vs Tarak Chandra Sadhukhan on 3 March, 1927
Equivalent citations: (1927) 29 BOMLR 953
Author: V Dunedin
Bench: V Dunedin, Darling, J Wallis


Viscount Dunedin, J.

1. This is really a most hopeless case for appeal. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to add anything to what was so very well said by the President of the Improvement Tribunal, who has examined the facts with great accuracy.

2. As far as the construction of the Act is concerned (and the construction of the Act is the only thing to be determined), their Lordships will only say that it seems to them that the epithet “permanently” is used as an antithesis to “temporarily,” and that upon the facts as put by the learned President there can be no doubt that these attachments were anything but temporary and fall absolutely within the word “permanently,” Indeed, their Lordships can only add that they wonder that such a case was appealed on behalf of the Government.

3. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that these appeals be dismissed with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.210 seconds.