Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Perumal Ayyan vs Alagirisami Bhagavathar And Ors. on 12 November, 1896
3. The next question is, from what date the interest became due. The note " of hand expressly purports to be a note of hand payable on demand" and it is contended by Mr. Mullick that where a hand-note is payable on demand it is payable immediately on its execution; and Mr. Mullick relies, in support of his argument, upon a case reported as Perumal Ayyan v. Alagirisami Bhagavathar 20 M. 245 at p. 248 : 7 M.L.J. 222 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 174 and at page 248 their Lordships say: "The words on demand' must, we think, be regarded as a technical expression equivalent to 'immediately' or 'forthwith'. That, we think, was the intention of the parties."
Champa Kalee Koer Widow Of Amar Pertap ... vs Tej Protap Singh on 15 June, 1885
The learned Judge has assessed this share at Rs. 176-9-0; but the fact that the learned Judge has arrived at this conclusion does not entitle the defendant to say that he is legally entitled to recover this sum without giving proof that it was legally recoverable at the date of the institution of the suit. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that Rs. 176-9-0 is due to the defendant by the plaintiff for the value of services rendered by him as a professional legal gentleman. But we think that the plaintiff cannot claim this sum as a legal or an equitable set-off; and certainly not as an equitable set off because the claim does not arise out of the same transaction. We have carefully considered the effect of the law laid down in the case reported as Diltor Koer v. Karkhoo Singh 37 Ind. Cas. 367 and vse are of opinion that the defendant in this case is not entitled in point of law to the set-off which he claims. Therefore, strictly speaking, the decree of the lower Court should be varied and the defendant's claim for a set-off should be dismissed. However, it appearing to us that something must be due by the plaintiff to the defendant for services rendered, we threw out the suggestion that the plaintiff as an honest man should pay an honest debt, more especially as the creditor is a Pleader who is usually one of the most deserving creditors in the world. However, Mr. Mullick had some diffidence in acceding to cur suggestion; but we consider that it is desirable that this litigation should, if possible, be brought to a termination. Therefore, although we think that the defendant is not entitled to a set-off in point of law, nevertheless we think that we should, on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, settle this litigation on a fair and equitable basis; and we would, therefore, allow the defendant, as against the plaintiff, credit for the amount to which he is entitled for services rendered by him as a Pleader and we fix this sum at the figure arrived at by the learned Judge, viz., Rs. 176-9-0. We accordingly set aside the decree of the lower Court and declare that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the full sum claimed by him by way of principal, viz., Rs. 1,109; and that he is further entitled to interest on this sum at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as and from the 2nd of November 1910 until the date of realization. As against, this sum of principal and interest the defendant will get credit for Rs. 176-9-0 as and for the value of services rendered by him to the plaintiff plus Rs. 400, being the sum already paid by him to the plaintiff, i.e., in all Rs. 570.
Basanti Bibi vs Sheo Mangal Parshad And Anr. on 6 February, 1909
L.R. 1 : 5 C.L.J. 7 (P.C) and also the case reported as Basanti Bibi v. Shea Mangal Parshad 2 Ind. Cas. 199 : 6 A.L.J. 233 undoubtedly favour that construction.
1