Manilal Virchand Banker Vs. A.C. Bussel - Court Judgment
|Case Number||Second Appeal No. 704 of 1923|
|Judge||Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ;Coyajee, J.|
|Reported in||(1926)28BOMLR515; 95Ind.Cas.552|
|Appellant||Manilal Virchand Banker|
exchange-rate of exchange-foreign judgment-rate prevailing on date of judgment-indian coinage act (xxxvi of 1920), section 11. ;in a said on a judgment of the high court in england, the rate of exchange is to be calculated at the rate prevailing at the date of the judgment, and not according to section 11 of the indian coinage act 1920.;madhavji v. ramniklal (1922) 25 bom. l.r. 173, followed. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c.,
- 10 per..........purposes of this suit,' and considered that in view of the clear provision of section 11 of the indian coinage act (xxxvi of 1920) the plaintiff could not be allowed to claim in rupees more than rs. 10 per sovereign, the appellate judge agreed with that finding, section 11 of the indian coinage act merely provides that in india the sovereign will be good tender for rs. 10, that is to say, if a owes b rs. 10 in indian coinage, then if he tenders a sovereign, that will be recognised as good tender. but for the converse it is not correct to say that if a owes b one , in england he can discharge that debt in india by tendering ra, 10. clearly the question here is how the sterling debt can be liquidated in rupees; and the amount of rupees must be calculated at a certain rate of exchange,.....
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the amount decreed to him by a decree of the High Court of Judicature in England, dated December 30, 1918, for 154-12-2 and 5-8 0 for costs He claimed that the amount in sterling should be calculated in rupees at the rate of Rs. 15-8-0 per pound. The learned Judge raised an issue : 'At what rate should the sovereign be valued for the purposes of this suit,' and considered that in view of the clear provision of Section 11 of the Indian Coinage Act (XXXVI of 1920) the plaintiff could not be allowed to claim in rupees more than Rs. 10 per sovereign, The appellate Judge agreed with that finding, Section 11 of the Indian Coinage Act merely provides that in India the sovereign will be good tender for Rs. 10, that is to say, if A owes B Rs. 10 in Indian coinage, then if he tenders a sovereign, that will be recognised as good tender. But for the converse it is not correct to say that if A owes B one , in England he can discharge that debt in India by tendering Ra, 10. Clearly the question here is how the sterling debt can be liquidated in rupees; and the amount of rupees must be calculated at a certain rate of exchange, to be fixed by the Oourfc. It was decided by Fawcett J. in a similar case Madhavji Vishram Thacker v. Ramniklal Wadilal (1921)25 Bom. L.R. 173after a review of all the authorities on the question, that in a suit on a judgment of the High Court in England the rate of exchange to be adopted should be the rate prevailing at the date of that judgment. We think that that decision should be followed.
2. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed and the amount of the decree will be the rupee equivalent of 16 3-10-2 at the rate of exchange on December 30, 1918.
3. Decree for that amount and costs in proportion. The rest of the decree will stand.