Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)

Shridhar Balkrishna Vaidya vs Babaji Mula Agarya on 2 July, 1914

7. The claim for the refund cannot be so easily disposed of. Lord Justice Bowen in the case above referred to says: "There might be a difficulty in recovering back money paid on account of the well-known ground which is shortly expressed in the maxim melior est conditio defendentis." It may be that if both parties are in pari delicto, the position of the defendant may give him an advantage. But where one party uses his position as prosecutor to secure moneys which but for the arrest he would not have got, the principle of the parties being in pari delicto cannot apply. Mr. Rangachariar foresaw this difficulty and contended that the payment was under the award of the arbitrators, and that a decree directing the refund would offend against the principle of placing the parties in status quo ante. If, in this case, the defendants had pleaded that they were entitled to retain the amount towards what is due to them from the plaintiff, I would have been inclined to direct the trial of an issue in that behalf. I agree with the dictum in Shridhar Balkrishna v. Babaji Mula 28 Ind. Cas. 134 : 38 B. 709 : 16 Bom. L.R. 586 that the defendant should not be estopped from showing that the money which he seeks to retain was really due to him.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Amjadennessa Bibi vs Rahim Buksh Shikdar on 28 May, 1914

He was coerced into paying the amount by the prosecution and by the promise to withdraw it. The decision in Amjadenessa Bibi v. Rahim Baksh Sikdar 28 Ind. Cas. 713 : 42 C. 286 : 19 C.W.N. 383 : 21 C.L.J. 642 is distinguishable from the present case. It was a compoundable offence and the learned Judges found that the defendant did not use his dominant position to get the money. In effect the finding was that there was no coercion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1