Bank Of India vs Harish Chandra Shrivastava on 7 July, 1997
The aforesaid decision has been followed in the case of Indian Bank v. Kamalalaya Cloth Store, AIR 1991 Orissa 44.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)Documents citing
Indian Bank vs Kamalalaya Cloth Store And Anr. on 25 June, 1990
Punjab National Bank vs Surinder Singh Mandyal And Ors. on 25 April, 1994
In Union Bank of India's case (supra) in order to distinguish the reasonings of the decision of House of Lords in Paton's case (supra), which virtually is the base of the view taken in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madras and Gauhati High Courts in the above referred decisions in Syndicate Bank's case, Scheduled Caste Co-op.'s case, Sigappiachi's case and United Bank of India's case, respectively, and those of High Court of Orissa in Indian Bank v. Kamalaya Cloth Store, AIR 1991 Orissa 44, Allahabad High Court in Jafar Hussain's case (supra) and Kalyanpur Cold Storage v. Sohan Lal Bajpai, AIR 1990 All 218, reference was made to the object of amendment carried out to Section 34 by 1956 Amendment Act.
Union Bank Of India vs Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay on 2 April, 1993
17. Before dealing with this conflict, it may be appropriate also to refer to some of the decisions of the other High Courts on this point. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sigappiachi v. Palaniappa, , the Orissa High Court in Indian Bank v. Kamalalaya Cloth Store, , the Allahabad High Court in Jafar Husain v. Bishambhar Nath, AIR 1937 All 442 and Kalyanpur Cold Storage v. Sohanlal Bajpai, , have all taken the view that the expression "principal sum adjudged" in section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code woud mean the amount found due on the date of the suit including interest accrued up to that date.
Union Bank Of India vs Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadhyay on 21 October, 1991
In Indian Bank v. Kamalalaya Cloth Store, , the High Court of Orissa has taken the view that interest accrued and added to the principal amount on the date of the suit is the principal for the purpose of section 34 of the Code. The High Court of Allahabad has been taking a similar view since 1937.
Sundaravel Industries vs Sorna Agencies And Anr. on 10 July, 1991
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decisions reported in Indian Bank case A.I.R. Ori.
1