Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.29 seconds)Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923
28. I am not, therefore, satisfied on the evidence on the record that though defendant No. 1 may have acted recklessly or imprudently in the management of his business, the debts which he incurred in accepting the bills in respect of the goods he had ordered were either illegal or immoral or avyavaharika. The contracts were not gambling or wagering transactions as the goods ordered by defendant No. 1 had arrived in Bombay and were in the custody of the banks who were pressing defendant No. 1 to pay the amount of the bills accepted by defendant No. 1 to the extent of the value of the goods. There is no element of moral turpitude involved in these transactions. The debt cannot be said to be one " not sanctioned by law or custom ", or " not lawful, or customary", or one " in which no right could be established in the creditor's favour in a Court of Justice." The debts incurred by the father were antecedent debts and were dissociated in point of fact as well as in time from the mortgage sued upon, and the appellant would be bound by the mortgage according to the decision of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad (1923) L.R. 51 I.A. 129 : s.c. 28 Bom. L.R. 500.
Nazir Begam vs Rao Raghunath Singh And Ors. on 18 February, 1919
It is not possible to say, after the decision of the Board in the case of Nazir Begam v. Rao Raghunath Singh, already referred to, that a plea of no legal necessity for a loan, and that the property is not at all liable for the payment of the amount claimed, does not open the door for a defendant to say that the rate of interest is excessive, and place on the plaintiff the onus of proving that the rate of interest is not excessive, having regard to all the circumstances which prevailed when the loan was made. The defendant in such a casa does not lose his right to raise this defence by adding the additional plea that, apart from the conditions which attach when a karta mortgagees the joint property, the stipulation in the bond for payment of interest, and compound interest, is in itself penal and unconscionable. In view, however, of the recent decision of this Board, the matter is concluded and no longer open to question.
Annabhat Shankarbhat Alvandi vs Shivappa Dundappa Manvi on 19 January, 1928
68. With one more argument I must deal, which was pressed be-fore us on more occasions than one during the arguments, with all the weight that the learned Counsel who appeared for the appellants is entitled to carry. It was said that the learned Judge had shut out evidence on a great number of points, unduly hampering, at several stages, the presentation of the defendants case. On examination, it appears that this grievance is based on rulings of the learned District Judge holding the following to be irrelevant to the suit: (1) the question whether the business of S. Narayan & Co. was the ancestral or separate
property of defendant No. 1; (2) the details of the transactions of S. Narayan & Co. prior to the creation of the alleged antecedent debts. In both these decisions we have agreed with the view of the learned Judge. On the former point there was no room for doubt, in view of Annabhat Shankarbhat v. Shivappa Dundappa (1928) I.L.R. 52 Bom. 376 : s.c. 30 Bom.
Durbar Khachar Odha Ala vs Khachar Harsur Oghad on 3 February, 1908
-unusual, or not sanctioned by law or custom: Durbar Khachar v. Khachar Harsur (1908) I.L.R. 32 Bom. 348 : s.c. 10 Bom. L.R. 297
Hanmant Kashinath Joshi vs Ganesh Annaji Pujari on 20 December, 1918
In Hanmant Kashinath v. Ganesh Annaji (1918) I.L.R. 43 Bom. 612 : s.c. 21 Bom. L.R. 435 it was held that the decretal debt of the father for breach of a civil duty as a trustee was not avyavaharika.
Ram Bujhawan Prosad Singh vs Nathu Ram on 11 December, 1922
In Ram Bujhawan Prasad Singh v. Nathu Ram (1922) L.R. 60 I.A. 14 : s.c. 25 Bom. L.R. 568, where the father of a joint family effected a mortgage as the head and karta of the joint family which was sought to be enforced against a son and also other members of the family and the agreement was to pay compound interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum with quarterly rests, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that there was no legal necessity for the high rate of interest charged and reduced the interest to twelve par cent. simple interest. The question of undue influence under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act would not arise in the present case where defendant No. 3 was a minor at the date of the mortgage and was incapable of contracting. In the present case the mortgage was not passed by the sons on attaining majority, but is sought to be enforced against the interest of the appellant in the joint family property by reason of his pious duty to pay the antecedent debts of the father. The antecedent debt of the father occupies the same place as necessity in the case of an alienation by the father of joint family property. If the antecedent debt does not carry compound interest at quarterly rests, the question as to the power of the father to alienate joint family property not only to the extent of the antecedent debt but also to the extent of compound interest with annual rests, will, I think, resolve itself into the question whether it was necessary for the father to stipulate for compound interest with annual rests while encumbering the joint family property for an antecedent debt. If I am right in holding that the question of necessity falls to be considered to a limited extent in the manner indicated above, the onus is on the lender to prove that the necessity demanded borrowing on such terms.
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nidavolu Atchutam Alias Achutaramayya ... vs Ratnaji Carrying On Business Under The ... on 22 October, 1925
L.R. 539and Achutaramayya v. Ratnajee Bhootaji (1925) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 211, and the latter was a question which
becomes equally clear, without any authority, when its real significance is understood.
Ramkrishna Trimbak Nadkarni vs Narayan Shivrao Aras on 20 August, 1915
In Ramkrishna Trimbak v. Narayan it was held that the sons could, not escape liability for payment of the debts of their father contracted in a fishing trade which was started by the father in contravention of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, and the decision in Durbar Khachar's case was held to amount to this that the civil penalty imposed by way of damages upon a father for a civil wrong committed by him does not give rise to the moral obligation of the son to discharge his debt, and that immorality or impropriety as between the father and the person with whom he traded is the crucial test in the case.