Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sant Lal Mahton vs Kamala Prasad on 17 October, 1951
In support of the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad and others, . Perusal of the facts in the said case would show that the principal debtor therein had acknowledged the repayments in written statement. Even then the Supreme Court had held that unless as per the requirement of the proviso there is an acknowledgment of the payment in the hand writing of, or in writing signed by, the person making the payment which is proved, there cannot be any extension of limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is, thus, clear that for claiming extension of limitation under section 19 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff creditor must prove that the said repayment is acknowledged in his hand writing by the person making the repayment or that it must be acknowledged in writing signed by him.
Balkrishna Mansukhram vs Jayshankar Narayan on 23 June, 1938
319, and in the case of Balkrishna Mansukhram v. Jayshankar Narayan, A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 460.
Maganlal Harjibhai vs Amichand Gulabji on 14 February, 1928
16. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant No. 1 has, however, relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manganlal Harjibhai & others v. Aminchand Gulabji and others, A.I.R. 1928 Bom.
Union Bank Of India vs Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay on 2 April, 1992
23. The next question which needs consideration is about the future interest from the date of the suit till realisation. In this regard, it may be seen that section 34 of the C.P.C. permits interest upon the principal sum adjudged by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 has urged before us that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of his Court in the case of Union Bank of India, Bombay v. Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay, , the principal sum adjudged by the Court means the sum without taking into consideration any interest whether simple or compound.
1