Kolkata Court May 1875 Judgments
C. Koegler and ors. Vs. the Coringa Oil Company, Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal43
Phear, J.1. As to this claim the defendants maintain there has been no binding award made; and clearly, as it seems to me, the plaintiffs, on their own showing, cannot succeed on this footing alone.2. In the first place it is not the fact that all the items in the schedule were awarded by any arbitrators, and in the second place there is not a pretence for saying that the award of the 16th April made in respect of the Dumphaile Castle parcel was a decision binding on the defendants on the terms of the contract. Neither of the arbitrators, who assumed to make that award, was appointed by the defendants' agents; nor had the contract at that time been made a rule of Court, and therefore none of the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 (even assuming that they could be of any use to the plaintiff) applied. In other words, the defendants had not then appointed an arbitrator either actually, or constructively, and had in fact absolutely refused to do so.3. As to the award of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kylas Chunder Pal Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Deen Doyal Poramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal92
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The two questions raised in this appeal, which are of most importance, are, first, whether compound interest stipulated by the instrument on which the plaintiffs sue will run beyond the due date, which is the end of Choitro 1275; and secondly, whether, with reference to the Hindu law, the plaintiffs and the defendant being both Hindus, a larger amount of interest than the principal can be recovered. As to the first question, we can have no doubt, I think, that the terms of the bond appear clearly to import that there was to be payment of interest in two instalments,--viz., a half-yearly and yearly payment, the word including not only the particular year which was to elapse before the amount was due, but each year until the whole sum was recovered. As to the second point, no authority has been laid before us to justify our adoption for Courts in the mofussil, of the rule of Hindu law that more interest than the principal could not be recovered. We are referred to a de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›