Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)
State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By ... vs Trisul Engineering Works, Rep. By Its ... on 7 March, 2003 cites

P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997

19. For the reasons given hereinabove we uphold the preliminary decree and dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the preliminary decree. We are fortified in our view in dismissing the application for condoning the delay by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in P.K. Ramachandran V. State of Kerala (1st supra) and the judgment of this Court reported in P.K. Ramachandran V. State of Kerala (2nd supra). However, we modify the final decree to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to only Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of decree till the date of final realization. A decree be drawn accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 733 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Abdul Hamid Shamsi vs Abdul Majid And Others on 12 April, 1988

17. We have already referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court and in the present case we find that the plaintiff could have estimated correct value of the suit and could have claimed the exact amount which was due to him. For these reasons, we find that the final decree could not have been passed exceeding Rs.70,000/-. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Abdul Hamid Vs. Abdul Majid, . The present suit is basically a suit for recovery of amounts and as we have already stated hereinabove that it was wrong to construe this suit to be a suit for accounts, but even if it is accepted that it was a suit for accounts, even then the plaintiff could not value the suit arbitrarily. In a suit for accounts under a partnership firm the plaintiff stated that he was entitled to huge profits in the partnership and it was also found that he was entitled to amounts worth lakhs, but he valued the suit at Rs.150/-. It was contended before the Supreme Court that in terms of Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court Fees Act it was the sweet-will of the plaintiff to value the suit at any amount, but the Supreme Court repelled the argument in the following words, "5. We are afraid, the interpretation put by the learned counsel on the decisions of this Court is not correct and cannot be accepted. None of the two cited judgments relied upon by Mr. Chaterjee helps him. It is true that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all the accounts and he may, therefore, put a tentative valuation upon the suit, but he is not permitted to choose an unreasonable and arbitrary figure for that purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 63 - L M Sharma - Full Document

C.V. Narayan Reddy vs Katanguru Raghava Reddy And Anr. on 10 April, 1979

11. So the suit claim was tentatively fixed at Rs.70,000/-, but a final decree was passed for Rs.6,84,234-90 ps. Now in the first instance we fail to understand how could a contractor file a suit for accounts, because while executing the works by himself, he knew what works were conducted, how much he was paid and how much he has not been paid. The preliminary decree which was an exparte decree was passed on a judgment which was not a reasoned judgment. The trial Court had only mentioned that the defendants were set exparte, therefore the decree as prayed for is granted. Let us assume that that judgment was final. Now coming to the question would the trial Court in the final decree proceedings pass a decree which was ten times more than the estimated value given by the plaintiff in his plaint. The learned Advocate General has referred to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in C.C. Reddy V. K.C. Reddy, 1968 (2) An.W.R. 616 . This judgment was given on a reference made to the Full Bench. Three questions were referred to the Full Bench. We are concerned with two questions.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next