LANGLEY Vs. DARCY
LAWS(BOM)-1929-3-23
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 05,1929

LANGLEY Appellant
VERSUS
D ARCY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application to review the taxation of the defendant-respondent s costs. The first five items objected to, are, in my opinion, items in regard to which there is no principle involved. It is well established that a Court or a Judge will not in general interfere with the order of taxation to be reviewed on a question that depends on the discretion of the Master, as, for instance, where the objection is to the amount As stated in Hill v. Peel (1870) L.R. 5 c. p. 172, 180 where a principle is involved, the Court will always interfere and entertain a review, but where it is a question of whether the Master exercised his discretion properly or it is only a question as to the amount to be allowed, the Court is generally unwilling to interfere with the judgment of its officer whose peculiar province it is to investigate and to judge of such matter, unless there are very strong grounds to show that the officer is wrong in the judgment which he has formed. In my opinion, no such case is made out as regards these items and as to these the application for review must fail.
(2.) The sixth item of objection is as to the disallowance by the Taxing Master of the amount claimed as expenses of the defendant s journey from and to Australia and boarding and lodging during the period of his stay in Bombay in connection with this suit.
(3.) [His Lordship then stated facts and proceeded]. The first point to consider is whether, as the defendant says, he is a resident of Australia. Mr. Coltman contends that there is no evidence to show that he is a resident of Australia or any evidence to show that he has a home and family in Australia. In his affidavit dated February 7, 1927, made for the purpose of applying to have the suit expedited, the defendant stated that he was a resident of Australia and he had left Bombay on or about May 1926 after winding up all his affairs in India, That statement remains un contradicted and unchallenged. In his examination he stated that his father was a breeder and a racing man and President of Albony Racing Club, Australia, and that he was connected with his father s stables in Australia until he came to India in 1914, In his cross-examination, he swore that he had property in Australia, Mr. Coltman relies upon the admission that when he was examined in 1923 in connection with his insolvency proceedings he had stated that he had no property in Australia, But that was at the time when he was examined in 1928. I cannot, therefore, accept the contention that the defendant is not a resident of Australia, Then it appears that he left this country immediately after he filed his cross-objections in Appeal No. 30 of 1927 and admittedly has not returned to India since then.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.