Skip to content


(Majety) Krishnayya Vs. Kuppala Nookayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad476
Appellant(Majety) Krishnayya
RespondentKuppala Nookayya
Excerpt:
- .....first point raised is that the defendant is not liable for charges incurred for facilitating the sending of goods, or in other words he is not liable for the bribes or presents to the railway officials in order to facilitate the sending of goods.; though this is an improper payment the petitioner has been a consenting party to the payment and has had the benefit of it; he cannot now turn round and say he is not liable to the plaintiff for the amount so paid. i disallow this objection.3. the second point is that the petitioner is not liable for the price of gunny bags as they were not of the proper quality. the subordinate judge has allowed a sum of rs. 57-12-0 on account of the poor quality of gunny bags. there is nothing in this point.4. the next point is that the petitioner is not.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Small Cause Suit No. 234 of 1924.

2. The first point raised is that the defendant is not liable for charges incurred for facilitating the sending of goods, or in other words he is not liable for the bribes or presents to the railway officials in order to facilitate the sending of goods.; Though this is an improper payment the petitioner has been a consenting party to the payment and has had the benefit of it; he cannot now turn round and say he is not liable to the plaintiff for the amount so paid. I disallow this objection.

3. The second point is that the petitioner is not liable for the price of gunny bags as they were not of the proper quality. The Subordinate Judge has allowed a sum of Rs. 57-12-0 on account of the poor quality of gunny bags. There is nothing in this point.

4. The next point is that the petitioner is not liable for the charges incurred by the plaintiff for sending men for collection purposes. If a creditor sends his men to collect the outstandings due to him he is not entitled to charge the debtor with costs of sending men to the debtor's place. This amount will be allowed in the petitioner's favour.

5. The next point is as regards compound interest. Mr. Ramachandra Rao contends that compound interest has been allowed on the sums alleged to be due by him to the plaintiff. Mr. B. V. Rama Narasu (for Mr. Venkata Rao) says that only simple interest has been allowed. It is not quite clear from the judgment whether interest allowed was compound or simple. I direct that simple interest be calculated on the amount due.

6. With these modifications I dismiss this petition, but, in the circumstances, without costs.


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