Skip to content


Majety Krishnayya Vs. Kuppala Nookayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in109Ind.Cas.649
AppellantMajety Krishnayya
RespondentKuppala Nookayya
Excerpt:
.....of bribes to railway officials--no objection by purchaser, in course of dealing--illegality of payment, whether can be raised subsequently--debtor and creditor--cost of sending men to collect debt, whether can be debited against debtor. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass..........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. Ramanarasu (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 //