1872 (3) TMI 1 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order for the issuing of the mandamus constitutes a "judgment" under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of 1865, making it open to appeal.
2. Whether the proceeding by way of mandamus qualifies as a "proceeding in a civil case" under the rule of April 4th, 1866.
3. Whether the order of the Judge directing the issuance of the mandamus is appealable.
4. Whether the writ of mandamus is considered obsolete in cases where parties may have a remedy through ordinary suits.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolved around determining whether the order for the issuance of the mandamus was considered a "judgment" under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of 1865, allowing for an appeal. The Court held that the order for mandamus did not constitute a judgment as it did not determine any question between the parties but merely initiated proceedings to ascertain liability. The Court emphasized that a judgment, whether final, preliminary, or interlocutory, must affect the merits of the question between the parties by determining a right or liability. The decision clarified that the word "judgment" in clause 15 should be interpreted narrowly to prevent vexatious appeals against discretionary orders made during a suit.

2. The Court addressed whether the proceeding by way of mandamus qualified as a "proceeding in a civil case" under the rule of April 4th, 1866. It was determined that mandamus falls under remedies for private wrongs or civil injuries, aligning with English legal commentary. The Court concluded that mandamus proceedings are considered a "proceeding in a civil case," making the Civil Procedure applicable to such cases.

3. In analyzing the appealability of the order directing the issuance of mandamus, the Court, in conjunction with the Code of Civil Procedure, concluded that the order was not a judgment against which an appeal would lie. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting clause 15 of the Charter in connection with the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the appealability of orders.

4. The Advocate-General contended that mandamus proceedings might be obsolete in cases where parties could seek remedies through ordinary suits. However, the Court affirmed that the High Court retained the power to issue a writ of mandamus in suitable cases. The judgment dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to pay the respondents' costs.

In summary, the Court clarified the scope of what constitutes a judgment under the Letters Patent of 1865, affirmed the applicability of mandamus proceedings as civil cases, and dismissed the appeal while upholding the power of the High Court to issue writs of mandamus in appropriate circumstances.