Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Parbati Charan Mukherjee And Ors. vs Amarendra Nath Bhattacharjee And Ors. on 15 December, 1925 cites

Gour Chandra Das vs Prasanna Kumar Chandra on 23 February, 1906

In support of the first contention the learned Advocate for the defendants relied upon the judgment of Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ. in Gour Chandra Das v. Prasanna. Kumar Chandra 33 C. 812 : 3 C.L.J. 363 : 10 C.W.N. 783. In that case, after the bond had been executed by the first defendant and while it was in the custody of the plaintiff, a material alteration of the bond was made by the plaintiff or some one on his behalf by adding the name of the second defendant as one of the executants thereof. The plaintiff sued both the defendants on the bond, but the suit was dismissed. The High Court granted a Rule calling upon the first defendant to show cause why the decree should not be set aside in so far as it dismissed the claim of the plaintiff as against the first defendant; but ultimately the Rule was discharged. It appears that the consideration for the bond in that suit was money due under an earlier bond for which the later bond was taken in substitution. The plaintiff therefore, was not entitled to rely upon the original consideration which had become merged in, and had been, satisfied by the later bond. The Court held that:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Pramatha Nath Sandal And Ors. vs Dwarka Nath Dey on 12 May, 1896

35. The third ground of defence remains to be considered, and it is incumbent upon the Court, to determine whether, having regard to the frame of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled in this suit to claim relief: based upon the, original consideration... The allegations of fact upon which such a claim' rests are clearly set out in the plaint, and are admitted in the written statement; and having regard to the prayer kha and the: general prayer a, in my opinion, a claim for relief in the suit in respect of the original' debt of Rs. 15,000 cannot be held to take> the defendants by surprise. In such circumstances it would be inequitable that the defendants should be enabled to evade payment of a sum which they admit to be due, and which they promised to pay as the purchase price of the plaintiff's share in the foundry which they bought, because the plaintiff also claimed relief in respect of the defendants' obligation under the bond which are not enforceable. In my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 which is the admitted balance of the purchase price in this suit as framed. Pramatha Nath Sandal v. Dwarka Nath Dey 23 C. 851 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Harichand Mancharam vs Govind Luxman Gokhale on 20 December, 1922

673, and Harichand Mancharam v. Govind Luxman Gokhale 71 Ind. Cas. 763 : 28 C.W.N. 73 : A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 47 : 17 L.W. 572 : 44 M.L.J. 608 : 32 M.L.T. 175 : 37 C.L.J. 440 : 25 Bom. L.R. 531 : 47 B. 335 : 50 I.A. 25 (P.C.). The plaintiff-appellant, however, contends that he was entitled to resort to the original consideration, and in this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000, the balance of the purchase price of the foundry. The defendants resist the plaintiff's claim on three alternative grounds: (1) that the original debt was extinguished by the material alteration of the terms of the bond; (2) that the obligation to pay the balance of the purchase money merged in the bond, and that the debt of Rs. 15,000 was satisfied by the acceptance of the bond; and (3) that the claim being founded upon the bond the plaintiff cannot recover upon the basis of the original debt without altering the frame of the suit, and that an amendment in that behalf ought not to be permitted, inasmuch as such a cause of action is now barred by the Statute of Limitation.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1