Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)Alcock, Ashdown And Company Limited vs The Chief Revenue Authority Of Bombay on 7 June, 1923
Large sums of money
have necessarily to be tied up
20
150
so long as the matter remains in abeyance, the prices of
land and materials are constantly rising and there is in the
vicinity a rival theater which is all the while acquiring
reputation and goodwill, two undefinable but important
considerations in commercial undertakings. It is therefore
desirable that questions of the kind we have here should be
decided as soon as may be It may be that any one of those
considerations taken separately might not be enough to
fulfil this requirement of section 45, but considered cumu-
latively we are of opinion that the applicant has no other
adequate remedy in tiffs case. In any event, there are many
cases of a similar nature in which section 45 has been
applied without objection despite the fact that an injunc-
tion could have been sought. We need only cite a decision
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (A1cock,
Ashdown & Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay) (1) where
Lord Phillimore says at page 233 :-
Section 42 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1