Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 176 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Bank Of India vs Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay on 2 April, 1992
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay, on consideration of different views, expressed dissent with the views expressed by Delhi, Allahabad, Orissa and Madras High Courts and following the aforesaid decision in the case of Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Jagannath Pigment and Chemicals and others and distinguishing Kaluram's case, held that the term "principal sum adjudged" in section 34 does not include in it any interest and that there is no scope for doubt that the expression "principal sum adjudged" would mean only the principal sum, and will never include the interest whatever be the agreement between the parties. It was held that interest under section 34 can be allowed only on principal sum and not on the principal sum plus interest accrued thereon till filing of the suit, meaning thereby that the interest could be awarded under section 34 only on the amount lent without the addition thereto of any interest whatsoever and this will be the position notwithstanding any agreement between the parties or any prevailing banking or trade practice to the contrary.
Bank Of Baroda vs Jagannath Pigment & Chem. And Ors. on 21 September, 1994
23. We are conscious of the fact that some other decisions have been rendered by this Court after the Full Bench decision, but in the said decisions, the Supreme Court's decision reversing Jagannath Pigment's case has not been noticed, the same probably not having been cited.
Central Bank Of India vs Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing ... on 20 December, 1996
In view of these pronouncement, we are unable to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that no ratio descidendi is discernible from Jagannath Pigment's case and that it is not a precedent for the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the law was not correctly laid down in Central Bank's case (supra).
Corporation Bank vs D.S. Godwa on 20 June, 1994
A learned Single Judge of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company & others, relying upon this decision of the Apex Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda and another, , has held that in view of the Supreme Court decision particularly one in the case of Jagannath Pigment, the current rate had to be granted on the compounded principal claimed in the plaint and not on the principal sum.
Gulamhusain Lalji Sajan vs Clara D'Souza on 11 October, 1928
In Gulamhusain Lalji Sajan v. Clara D'Souza A.I.R. 1929 Bom. 471 it was held that in cases of a pledge the creditor has two rights which are concurrent and the right to proceed against the property is not merely accessory to the right to proceed against the debtor personally and on the same lines. Reliance in the said decision was also placed on Full Bench decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts. The same principles were held to be applicable to the cases of hypothecation or mortgage of movable property.