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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 207

MOCKETT
Periakaruppan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
A. L. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mockett, J.

1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and the decree-holder is the respondent. The amount concerned is Rs. 1,809-1-8. An amount of Rs. 9,681-13-9 was paid into Court in pursuance of an order of the High Court on the 9th August, 1,937. By making that payment the judgment-debtor obtained a stay of execution. It is contended by the appellant-judgment-debtor that from that day, namely, the 9th August, 1937, interest should cease to run in favour of the decree-holder; and if that is so there will be a reduction in the amount now claimed of Rs. 1,809-1-8 being the difference between Rs. 11,981-0-r for which amount the judgment-debtor claimed credit and the sum of Rs. 10,171-14-9 for which he was actually given credit by the decree-holder.

2. The short point before us is this : Does interest cease to run from the date of payment in, as contended by the appellant? There is no specific provision of law on the point. Order 24, Rules 1 to 3 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with payments in satisfaction which imply an admission of liability. In that case it is provided by Rules 2 and 3 that notice should be given to the plaintiff and after notice interest should not run ag



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