Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
OLDFIELD, TYRRELL, JJ.
Param Sukh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Dayal - Respondent
Decided On : 12-08-1886
JUDGMENT
Oldfield, J. - This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, passed upon objections of the judgment-debtor, against whom a decree of the Privy Council was being executed. The decree-holders took out execution for a sum of 119-11 awarded to them, and the question is, at what rate of exchange that sum should be made available to the decree-holders in rupees.
2. It appears to me that, under the last paragraph of Section 610, the amount payable must be estimated at the rate of exchange "or the time being fixed by the Secretary of State for India in Council," and that the words "for the time being" mean the year in which the amount is realized, or paid, or execution taken out, and not the year in which the decree was passed. The rate of exchange being fixed yearly by the Secretary of State for India in Council, the rate of exchange on the date of the application for execution was the proper rate of exchange the decree-holders were entitled to. On this point, therefore, this appeal succeeds.
3. The appellants' pleader gives up the other plea as to the decree-holder's right to costs of execution.
4. The lower Court must be directed to proceed with the application for execution of decree in accordance with the view of the law recorded above.
5. The decree-holders, appellants, are entitled to the costs of this appeal, which are fixed at one gold mohur or Rs. 16.
Tyrrell, J.
6. I concur.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
