9911796707
TMI Blog1927 (3) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r payment of sums of money, due upon the failure of constituents to satisfy debts due to Messrs. Tata, Sons & Company, which sums the defendants had undertaken to make good to them. Judgment had been obtained, and there was no dispute about the amount or validity of these debts or about their being due from the original debtors, but Messrs. Jeetmull, who carry on business in Calcutta, contend that they cannot be sued for this money in Rangoon. The transactions between these parties were a continuation of dealings which had existed for a number of years before the present plaintiffs became an incorporated company and had been carried on under a memorandum dated the 10th December 1911, and signed in Calcutta. It is Clause 2 of that contract t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditor. The simple answer to that would have been that, on the contrary it was a mere implication of the meaning of the parties. The appellants, however, rely upon Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act, which is in these terms: When a promise is to be performed without application by the promisee and no place is fixed for the performance of it, it is the duty of the promisor to apply to the promisee to appoint a reasonable place for the performance of the promise and to perform it at such place. 3. Then it is said that no place was fixed by the contract or prior to the institution of this suit for the performance of the obligation of payment, and no application has been made by the promisor to the promise to appoint a reasonable place and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 649, where it was held that In the absence of stipulation in the contract itself, the intention of the parties to it was to guide the Court in determining the place of its performance, 5. and upon that principle the suit, which was one relating to leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, was decided against the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court, Then, shortly after the former of the above cases, in the case of Puttappa Manjaya v. Virabhadrappa [1905] 7 Bom. L.R. 993, the High Court of Bombay had the matter before it on appeal. No authority whatever appears to have been cited, but, there being an objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a creditor's suit for recovery of payment from the debtor, Sir Lawrence Jenkins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to repay the loan. But there is no implied promise to repay it at Secunderabad. Even by-British law the duty of a debtor to find and pay his creditor is only imposed upon him when the creditor is within the realm. And the plaintiff has not contended that if there be any such duty at all imposed by Indian law upon a debtor, its extends in this respect further than in England Accordingly, so far as the principal debtor is concerned, there is no obligation upon him either express or implied to make any payment to the plaintiff at Secunderabad. 7. Their Lordships do not think that in this state of the authorities it is possible to accede to the present contention that Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act gets rid of inferences, that should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
