Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 132 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohesh Chandra Banerji vs Prosanna Lal Singh on 14 August, 1903
The first of these cases, Mohesh Chandra v. Prosanna Lal (A) dealt with an instalment-bond which gave the creditor the right to sue for the whole amount due thereunder on default of payment of a single instalment. The learned Judges held that mere acceptance by the creditor of part of an overdue instalment or receipt of interest did not amount to waiver of that right.
Jadab Chandra Bakshi vs Bhairab Chandra Chuckerbutty on 13 January, 1904
A different note however was struck by the Allahabad High Court in Ajudhia v. Kunjal, ILR 30 All 123 (G), where a Bench of that Court dissented from Hurri Pershad v. Nasib Singh (E), and Jadab Chandra v. Bhairab Chandra (B).
Section 128 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Lasa Din vs Gulab Kunwar on 21 June, 1932
"I would guard myself against holding that in the case of every bond with a default clause the whole amount necessarily become due. The answer would depend on the particular language of the document employed. But I would certainly hold that even if it be held that money does not become due immediately on the occurrence of a default, it would certainly become due if the creditor exercises his option by demanding the amount and by serving notice on the defendant to pay the whole sum." All the learned Judges however referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Lasa Di v. Gulab Kunwar, AIR 1932 PC 207 : ILR 7 Luck 442 (J).
Article 74 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maharaja Of Benares vs Nand Ram And Anr. on 14 March, 1907
In doing so, they referred to the remarks made in an earlier case decided by their own Court Maharaja of Benares v. Nand Ram, ILR 29 All 431 (H), and observed as follows : --