HPB-SB-5-55 - Revision history

Pavel Malakhov at 09:12, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T09:12:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 2 May 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| notes =		\| notes =
	}}		}}
			{{Page\|191\|Transaction Collection.}}
	{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}		{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}

	~~{{Page\|191\|Transaction Collection.}}~~

	{{Style P-No indent\|had pledged the house and agreed to pay interest on amount borrowed @ 24% per annum. C sued A&B for the interest and principal. C demanded in the law suit that the house be auctioned so that he can get paid. The lower court decided in favor of C but did not award him the interest. In an appeal filed at the District Court, the judgment of lower court not awarding the interest was overruled and the Court awarded interest to C @ 6% per annum. An appeal was filed at the High Court against this decision.}}		{{Style P-No indent\|had pledged the house and agreed to pay interest on amount borrowed @ 24% per annum. C sued A&B for the interest and principal. C demanded in the law suit that the house be auctioned so that he can get paid. The lower court decided in favor of C but did not award him the interest. In an appeal filed at the District Court, the judgment of lower court not awarding the interest was overruled and the Court awarded interest to C @ 6% per annum. An appeal was filed at the High Court against this decision.}}

	'''Judgment of the Hon. High Court:''' – According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed. {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}		'''Judgment of the Hon. High Court:''' – According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed. {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}

Pavel Malakhov at 09:04, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T09:04:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 2 May 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:
	{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}		{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}

	Judgment of the Hon. High Court: - According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed.		{{Page\|191\|Transaction Collection.}}

	{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}		{{Style P-No indent\|had pledged the house and agreed to pay interest on amount borrowed @ 24% per annum. C sued A&B for the interest and principal. C demanded in the law suit that the house be auctioned so that he can get paid. The lower court decided in favor of C but did not award him the interest. In an appeal filed at the District Court, the judgment of lower court not awarding the interest was overruled and the Court awarded interest to C @ 6% per annum. An appeal was filed at the High Court against this decision.}}

			'''Judgment of the Hon. High Court:''' – According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed. {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}

Pavel Malakhov at 11:55, 13 April 2023

2023-04-13T11:55:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 13 April 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	}}		}}

	{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|~~(Text in Devanagari)~~\|5-54}}		{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}

	...		Judgment of the Hon. High Court: - According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed.

	{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}		{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}

Pavel Malakhov at 02:37, 12 January 2023

2023-01-12T02:37:33Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 }}
-{{HPB-SB-item
+{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|(Text in Devanagari)|5-54}}
 ...

Irina Malyh: Created page with "{{HPB-SB-header | volume = 5 | page = 55 | image = SB-05-055.jpg | notes = }} {{HPB-SB-item | volume = 5 | page =55 | item =1 | type = article | status = wanted | c..."

2022-11-15T12:37:35Z

Created page with "{{HPB-SB-header | volume = 5 | page = 55 | image = SB-05-055.jpg | notes = }} {{HPB-SB-item | volume = 5 | page =55 | item =1 | type = article | status = wanted | c..."

New page

{{HPB-SB-header
| volume = 5
| page = 55
| image = SB-05-055.jpg
| notes =
}}

{{HPB-SB-item
| volume = 5
| page =55
| item =1
| type = article
| status = wanted
| continues =
| author =
| title =
| subtitle =
| untitled =yes
| source title =
| source details =
| publication date =
| original date =
| notes =at sanscrit
| categories =
}}

...

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 2 May 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:
	{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}		{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued\|The High Court of Bombay \|5-54}}

	Judgment of the Hon. High Court: - According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed.		{{Page\|191\|Transaction Collection.}}

	{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}		{{Style P-No indent\|had pledged the house and agreed to pay interest on amount borrowed @ 24% per annum. C sued A&B for the interest and principal. C demanded in the law suit that the house be auctioned so that he can get paid. The lower court decided in favor of C but did not award him the interest. In an appeal filed at the District Court, the judgment of lower court not awarding the interest was overruled and the Court awarded interest to C @ 6% per annum. An appeal was filed at the High Court against this decision.}}

			'''Judgment of the Hon. High Court:''' – According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed. {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on\|5-56}}