Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King-Emperor

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1945
Date1945
CourtPrivy Council
[PRIVY COUNCIL.] PARASHURAM DETARAM SHAMDASANI APPELLANT; AND KING-EMPEROR RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY. 1945 May 29. LORD MACMILLAN, LORD GODDARD and Sir MADHAVAN NAIR.

Contempt of Court - Litigant in Person - Insult to opposing counsel during argument - Reflection on taxing masters - Not a contempt - Principles applicable - Costs.

The appellant, who was appearing in person on a summons to review taxation of the costs of an action in which he had been an unsuccessful plaintiff, having been accused by opposing counsel in the course of the argument of misleading the court as to the nature of the issues raised in the action, replied: “I do not keep anything back at all. My fault is that I disclose everything, unlike members of the Bar, who are in the habit of not doing so and misleading the court.” Later, in dealing with the statement by the taxing master, with regard to the allowance of discretionary items, that he had taken into consideration all the matters mentioned in r. 563 of the High Court Rules, the appellant said: “It is customary for the taxing masters to write what is written at the end of the paragraph, but is it considered at all?” The appellant was found guilty of contempt of court both in his reflections on the Bar and on the taxing masters:—

Held, first, that the words used by the appellant respecting the Bar, and which must be taken to have been intended by him to refer to the opposing counsel in particular, did not, and could not, amount to a contempt of court. For words or action used in the face of the court, or in the course of proceedings, to be a contempt, they must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice. An insult to counsel or to the opposing litigant is very different from an insult to the court itself or to members of the jury, who form part of the tribunal, though conceivably if a litigant or an advocate used language so outrageous and provocative as to be likely to lead to a brawl in court the offence could be said to have been committed.

Ex parte Pater (1864) 5 B. & S. 299, referred to.

Held, secondly, that while, no doubt, if a litigant were to suggest in court that its officers were corrupt or habitually failed to carry out their duties the court might consider it a contempt, though if it were only the latter that was suggested it would be unwise to do so, here in the light of all the circumstances the words relating to the taxing masters afforded no reasonable grounds for adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt of court.

The summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases, and to use it to suppress methods of advocacy which are merely offensive is to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended.

While in a criminal appeal opposed by the Crown costs are not in practice awarded to a successful appellant, the present matter, although known as a criminal contempt, was in a different category from an ordinary criminal case, and its particular circumstances were such that the appellant was awarded the costs of the appeal.

Order of Kania J. set aside.

APPEAL (No. 23 of 1944) from a judgment and order of the High Court (Kania J.) (October 15, 1942), as modified by an order of that judge (October 16, 1942).

The question in this appeal was whether the appellant had in all the circumstances committed the offence of contempt of court in making the following two statements in open court before Kania J. on October 9, 1942, in the course of argument on a summons for a review of taxation of costs: (a) “I do not keep anything back at all. My fault is that I disclose everything, unlike members of the Bar, who are in the habit of not doing so and misleading the court.” (b) “It is customary for the taxing masters to write what is written at the end of the paragraph, but is it considered at all?”

Kania J. found the appellant guilty of contempt of court in respect of both matters, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight days and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000. On November 18, 1942, the High Court (Beaumont C.J. and Sen J.) granted the appellant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the order of Kania J.

1945. Apr. 12. W. W. K. Page for the appellant. The appellant was not, in making either of the statements in question, in contempt of the court. Neither R. v. DavisonF1 nor French v. FrenchF2 mentioned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • A-G; Jaginder Singh and Others
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Ram Goswami v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 Octubre 1984
    ...Crown Court [1975] QB 73 (refd) Joseph Orakwue Izuora v The Queen [1953] AC 327 (folld) Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264 (folld) Weston v Central Criminal Court, Courts Administrator [1977] QB 32 (folld) Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 14, 1970 Rev Ed)s 8 J Grimberg (D......
  • Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 13 Enero 2014
    ...(1981), 16 Alta. L.R.(2d) 246; 62 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 165]. Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King Emperor, [1945] A.C. 264, refd to. [para. 166]. R. v. Paul, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 169; 33 N.R. 91; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 626, refd to. [para. 166]. R. v. Kopyto (1987), 24 O.A.C. 81......
  • Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1971 Preliminary Sections
    • 14 Noviembre 2022
    ...106 Scarf v. Jardine (1882) 7 App. Cases 345. .............................................. 305 Shandasami v. King Emperor (1945) A.C. 264. .......................................... 334 Shehu Dummemi v The Queen (1955) 15 W ACA 75 .................................... 52 Shelter v. City of......
  • JUDGES TO USE SUMMARY POWERS TO PUNISH SPARINGLY
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon’s Judicial Dictionary of Nigerian Law. First edition J
    • 6 Febrero 2019
    ...be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt." In the case Shandasami v. King Emperor (1945) A.C. 264 at p. 268, Lord Goddard, C.J. in delivering the judgment of the Court said: - "Dealing first with the appellant’s reference to the conduct o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT