Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maniram vs Seth Rupchand on 25 May, 1906
(11) Mr. Bindra next urged that the plaintiffs suit should have been dismissed because it could not be maintained merely on the basis of an acknowledgment of liability, that such an acknowledgment could only save limitation but could not furnish a cause of action on which a suit could be maintained. The Judicial Commissioner took the view that an unqualified acknowledgment like the one in the suit, and the statement of the account under which the entry had been made, were sufficient to furnish a cause of action to the planiff's for maintaining the present suit. We are satisfied that no exception can be taken to this conclusion. It was held by the Privy Council in Maniram v. Seth Rupchand, 33 ind. app. 165 (F.C.) (C) that an unconditional acknowledgment implies a promise to pay because that is the natural inference if nothing is said to the contrary.
Sushila Mehta vs Bansi Lal Arora on 26 October, 1981
U.I. In Mrs. Sushila Mehta Vs. Shri Bansi Lal Arora & Am.. Ilr (1982) (9) I Delhi 320 the plaintiff paid the allocation money of Rs. 1,00,000 for allotment of shares. The defendants accepted the payment as allocation money. The payment, its acceptance and the receipt thereof issued by the defendants held to constitute a written contractor the purposes of Order 37 Rule 1. It was observed that though it may be labelled as receipt but that does not meant that it is no! a contract. In paras 10 & Ii it was further observed as under : "10. The question is whether the receipt doted 26th August, 1978 is a "written contract" or not. In my opinion it clearly is. The plaintiff paid the application money for allotment of shares. The defendants accepted it, though it is true that defendant No. 2 came into existence a few months later. The payment of Rs. 1,00,000 by the plaintiff as application money and its acceptance by the defendants constitutes a contact. It may be labelled ;as a receipt but that does not mean that it is not a contract. 11. It was said that it has not been pleaded that the suit is based on a written contract. This is not required by any provision of law. The Court has to find out whether the suit has been brought upon a negotiable instrument or a written contrast or an enactment or a guarantee to which Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . applies. The acknowledgment of Rs. 1,00,000 by the defendants for the purpose of allotment of shares as application money therefor clearly amounts to a contract. Because it is their own case that the plaintiff paid allotment of shares and they accepted it. There was "consensus of mind". And "consensus of mind" leads to a contract, as Lord Caizns said.
Jugal Kishore Rameshwardas vs Mrs. Goolbai Hormusji on 4 October, 1955
(12) An incidental question is "Whether such an agreement should be signed by both the parties It is not necessary that HCD/97-9 604 written agreement should be signed by both the parties. If any authority is needed one may refer to jugal Kishore v. Goolbai Hormusji. . In this case Venkatrama Ayyar, J. observed as under : 7. But it is settled law that to constitute an arbitration agreement in writing it is not necessary that it should be signed by the parties, and it is sufficient if the terms are reduced to writing and the agreement of the parties thereto is established".
Seth Banarsi Das vs The Cane Commissioner & Another on 6 December, 1962
In this regard one may also refer to Seth Banarsi Das v. Cane Commissioner, . In the construction of a written document, it is legitimate in order to ascertain their true meaning if that be doubtful. In nave regard to the circumstances surrounding the creation of the subject matter to which it was designed and intended that it should apply. It must be seen what is the intention expressed by the words used; hit whether the language is imperfect, and it is impossible to know what the intention is without enquiring further, the circumstances with reference to which the words were used should be looked. The contract must be construed as a whole and the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the documents as a whole. 12.4.
Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 December, 1981
In ordinary course such type of affidavit should not be relied upon under Order 19, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code . unless it is stated that such cheque was received by the other firm in the presence of the deponent and it was presented to the bank in his presence and was subsequently dishonoured and he had seen the letter of the bank conveying the information about the cheque having been dishonoured. Even where allegations in an affidavit are stated to be correct to the best of the knowledge, the nature and source of knowledge must be disclosed. If the nature and source of the knowledge is not disclosed the affidavit would not be as per law (see m/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., . In such circumstances it appears that the defense taken by the petitioner is as good as illusory a sham and practically a moon-shine and therefore, unconditional leave could not be granted.
The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Pierce Leslie And Co. Ltd. on 18 December, 1962
(1883) 11 Qbd 518 it was held in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Pierce Leslie & Co. Ltd., , that the essential requisites of a debt are (1) an ascertained or readily calculable amount; (2) an absolute unqualified and present liability in regard to the amount with the obligation to pay forthwith or in future within a time certain ; (3) the obligation must have accrued and be subsisting and should not be that which is merely accruing. A contingent liability or a contingency debt is, therefore, neither a liability nor a debt. A debt is a 'debitum in praesenti, solvendum in future'. We, therefore, hold that the amount covered by the suit is an ascertained amount payable under an unqualified present liability. The obligation has accrued and subsists. It is a debt accruing under a written contract".
M/S. Skylark Motors (India) And Others vs Lakshim Commercial Bank Ltd. on 3 July, 1996
(17) It may be mentioned that the revision petition would be maintainable though decree has also been passed in this case in terms of decision of this court in M/s. Skylark Motors India and Others Vs. Lakshmi Commercial. Bank Limited Civil Revision No. 65/85 (17) Decided on 3rd July.