Skip to content


Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Victoria Mills Company, Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR39All362
AppellantBrij Mohan Lal
RespondentVictoria Mills Company, Limited
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (1908), order viii, rule 6 - set-off--suit by clerk who had left employment without notice for arrears of wages--counter-claim for damages in lieu of notice. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under..........claimed. i am of opinion that this contention cannot prevail. order viii, rule 6, of the code of civil procedure provides that in a suit for the recovery of money, the defendant can claim to set-off against the plaintiff's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff. the amount claimed as damages is not an ascertained sum of money. so that, according to the code of civil procedure, there cannot be a set-off of damages. this is clear from illustration (c) to the rule. the cases on the point have been quoted in woodroffe and ameer ali's edition of the code of civil procedure, and i need not refer to them. the present case is not a case of equitable set-off nor is it a case of damages arising out of the same transaction. therefore under the provisions.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. The only question which has been argued in this case is whether the applicants defendants were entitled to set-off against the plaintiff's claim the amount which they claimed as damages. The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants as a clerk. On the 4th of April, 1916, he resigned his appointment and went away. He brought the present suit to recover his salary for the month of March and for the four days of April. He also claimed his pay for the month of May. The defendants filed a written statement, in the 13th paragraph of which they claimed that they were entitled to Rs. 14 'by way of damages in lieu of notice.' The court below made a decree for the wages for March and dismissed the remainder of the claim. It was of opinion that the defendants were not entitled to any further damages, It is contended in this application for revision that the court below ought to have allowed a set-off of the damages claimed. I am of opinion that this contention cannot prevail. Order VIII, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in a suit for the recovery of money, the defendant can claim to set-off against the plaintiff's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff. The amount claimed as damages is not an ascertained sum of money. So that, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, there cannot be a set-off of damages. This is clear from Illustration (c) to the rule. The cases on the point have been quoted in Woodroffe and Ameer Ali's edition of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I need not refer to them. The present case is not a case of equitable set-off nor is it a case of damages arising out of the same transaction. Therefore under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6, referred to above, the damages claimed could not be set off in this case. The court below was, in my opinion, right. I dismiss the application, but without costs as the other side is not represented.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //