SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Del) 32

MAHINDER NARAIN
RAJINDER KUMAR KHANNA – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.G.KAPUR, Sushma Sachdeva, V.P.Chaudhary

Mahinder Narain, J.

( 1 ) A suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought by the petitioner, basing itself upon a report of an assessor regarding damages suffered to cargo of dry dates, which had been insured by the petitioner. Marine insurance claim having been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent company.

( 2 ) IT was asserted by the plaintiff in the suit and the petitioner before me, that the claim in the suit was a "liquidated demand". The petitioner seeks to take advantage of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedureby, which "liquidated demand" became subject-matter of summary suits for the first time.

( 3 ) THE industry of counsel had not been abic to produce a single precedent of courts in india, which explained what is "liquidated demand". However, reference has been made to Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, in which reference is made to Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 40 A. 2d 188. It is stated that "amount claimed to be due is a "liquidated demand" within statute authorizing summary judgments if it is susceptible of being made certain in amount by mathematical calculations from factors which are or ought to be in possession or knowl

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top