Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:- Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
1963 (1) TMI 66
... ... ... ... ..... ave already referred to a Bench decision of this High Court in AIR 1960 AP 273 , according to which the transaction of this nature is a pledge and not a mortgage. As I have come to the conclusion that the suit falls within Section 23(2)(b) it is unnecessary to go in the details as to the scope and nature of Section 23(1). For the reasons mentioned above my concluded opinion is that the court-fee payable on the first relief should be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. The revision petition, therefore, is allowed and the Court below is directed to find out whether the plaint valuation regarding the first relief is correct and if not, what is the value which the Court puts on such a relief and collect from the petitioners under Section 23(2)(b) of the Act Court-fees keeping in view the valuation which is higher. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.
-
1963 (1) TMI 64
... ... ... ... ..... e Judge should also consider the question whether it would not be proper to direct the first defendant to invest these amounts in the names of the minor girls themselves, so that the amount may be available to them on their attaining age and be useful for celebrating their marriages. 16. Subject to the modification referred to above, the decree of the court below is confirmed. This litigation is a result of an unseemly fight between a father and his son. The son was no doubt obliged to file the suit as the father appears to have been very adamant. The plaintiff has also not been considerate towards the father, even, to the extent to which it was possible for him, as he obtained an ex parte order for the appointment of a Commissioner to take an inventory of the moveables of the household, a few days after the commencement of the Tamil New year in 1958. In the, circumstances, we are of opinion that the parties should bear their respective costs both here and in the court below.
-
1963 (1) TMI 63
... ... ... ... ..... doubt', said Willes J., 'the general rule is that the language of an Act is to be read according to its ordinary grammatical construction unless so reading it would entail some absurdity, repugnancy, or injustice, . . . But I utterly repudiate-the notion that it is competent to a Judge to modify the language of an Act in order to bring it in accordance with his views of what is right or reasonable'." 75. Keeping the above observations in view, I am of the opinion that the words "at any time" should carry their plain meaning and it is not open to the Court to circumscribe or restrict their operation. 76. I agree with the final order proposed to be passed about the acceptance of the appeals but only on the ground that the schemes of consolidation were ordered to be revoked and varied without notice to the respective appellants, who were parties interested and without giving any opportunity to them to submit their objections about the proposed change.
-
1963 (1) TMI 60
... ... ... ... ..... absence of special circumstances like fraudulent representation, or in the absence of other features from which a Court can infer a contract to be one of indemnity, as defined under Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act the liability of the surety is only ancillary and rests only on a valid obligation on the part of the party whose debt or obligation is guaranteed. 16. We respectfully follow this view. It must be said, in fairness to the learned Judge, that the decision in AIR1957Mad164 does not appear to have been mentioned to him. We are of the opinion that, where the liability of the principal is held to be not enforceable, on the ground of the contract being illegal there is no question of the surety being made liable. Therefore, this finding of the learned Judge is also reversed. 17. The appeal is allowed, and the decree of the trial Court is restored. The appellant will get the costs of the appeal as well as of the Letters Patent Appeal from the contesting respondent.
-
1963 (1) TMI 59
... ... ... ... ..... agent of a foreign principal who sold the goods to the plaintiff he falls squarely within the exception under Section 230. In order to avoid personal liability, the second defendant must show that by express words or by necessary implication he contracted out of such liability. In regard to the liability of damages cl. 26 referred to by my learned brother in his judgment quite clearly exempts him from liability of any kind. But in regard to the refund of the advance amount, there is no specific provision in the contract excluding his liability. It is not part of the claim for damages. Eves it the plaintiff was the party in breach, he would do entitled to a refund of the advanced amount subject of course to the claim of the defendant by way of cross claim to recover damages from him. We have, therefore, no doubt that the plaintiff's claim for refund of the advance from the second defendant is well founded. I agree with my learned brother in the judgment and decree passed.
-
1963 (1) TMI 58
... ... ... ... ..... be ruled out. The object of the imposing the time limit in section is to expedite the proceedings, and dispose of the claims so as to obviate the threat to breach of peace, within a very short period. With this end in view, the various provisions of Section 145 have been laid down. It is, no doubt, true that if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at every stage, the object of this enactment would be defeated. But, as observed above, the procedure is always subservient to the abject sought to be achieved, viz., a fair disposal of the case on a date adduced to the satisfaction of the parties. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that, if the petitioners are able to satisfy the Magistrate that for reasons beyond their control they could not file certain documents which support their claim in regard to actual possession, the Magistrate would not be precluded from accepting the same, in being so satisfied. 6. The revision case is dismissed with these observations.
|