Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar vs District Collector Chittoor And Anr. on 17 April, 1963

Irinjalakuda Bank Ltd. vs Poruthussery Panchayat on 21 January, 1970

17. I may also notice that in the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. M. A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. Distric Collector, Chittoor, A.I.R. 1967 A.P. 126, it was contended that the instrument which was the subject-matter of the controversy in that case was not negotiable and this contention is seen to have found acceptance. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that on the face of it this contention is unsustainable because the very decision of the Madras High Court on which reliance is placed has considered a similar instrument as a bill of exchange, and therefore there was no warrant for the Andhra Pradesh High Court to hold otherwise with regard to the instrument before it. There is no discussion on that question, but the court assumes that there is no doubt that the bill concerned was not negotiable. It is possible that the particular document with which the Andhra Pradesh High Court was concerned in that case was not a bill of exchange as the term is defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act. I do not want to go into the question further here because in the present case what I am concerned with is a cheque.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Superintendent Of Police, ... vs Nabeesa W/O Abdulla And Ors. on 14 August, 1996

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. District Collector, Chittoor, AIR 1967 Andh Pra 126, held that matters covered by special Tribunal are to be decided by that Tribunal. When jurisdiction has been conferred upon special Court for investigation of particular matters, its jurisdiction is exclusive and civil Court cannot try the above. When order of attachment is issued under Sections 82 and 83, the remedy for third party is provided under Section 84. Remedy under Section 84 is exclusive and if a person has got full opportunity of getting his right adjudicated provided in the special statute, he cannot adjudicate the same in a suit. He has to exhaust the remedy under the same. Of course, under Section 84(4), after an order is passed, if the person is aggrieved, still he can file a suit.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition vs 3Rd Additional District Judge And Ors. on 18 May, 2002

In S.M.A. Somassundaram Madalia v. District Collector, AIR 1967 Andh. Pradesh 125, petitione's land was acquired under the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner received the bill drawn on the treasury for the amount payable to him without protest on the day the award was announced. Later on, in the evening, the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed a petition disputing the amount of compensation awarded to him and requiring the matter to be referred for determination by the court. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application under the proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act, holding that the petitioner having received the bill amount without protest, was not entitled to make an application for referring the case to the Court. The contention of the petitioner that the receipt of bill did not amount to receiving the amount was rejected, holding that the receipt of bill, representing the amount payable, was tantamount to receiving the amount, further observing that the protest must necessarily be made to the Land Acquisition Officer who tenders payment of compensation and by necessary implication at the time when he so tenders the payment.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Fateh Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors. on 9 December, 1975

Reference may also be made here to case, S. M. A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. District Collector, Chittoor, . In that case, the petitioner's I and was acquired under the Act. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner received the bill drawn on the treasury for the amount payable to him without protest in the day the award was announced. Later on in the evening, the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed a petition disputing the amount of compensation awarded to him and requiring the matter to be referred for determination by the Court. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application under the proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act holding that the petitioner having received the bill amount without protest, was not entitled to make an application for referring the case to the Court. The contention of the petitioner that the receipt of bill did not amount to receiving the amount was rejected holding that the receipt of bill representing the amount payable was tantamount to receiving the amount further observing that the protest must necessarily be made to the land acquisition officer who tenders payment of compensation and by necessary implication at the time when he so tenders the payment.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sk. Khaja Sk. Choota vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 July, 1990

This would mean that if at the time of receipt of compensation, the petitioner does not file a protest then the said claimant is excluded from making the application under Section 18 of the Act. That proviso virtually disentitles the claimant to make an application under Section 18 of the Act. The legal position appears to be that there is a concluded contract and the claimant cannot resile from it after having accepted the amount of award. Now, this statutory position is stated in . in the case of S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. District Collector, Chittoor and Anr. In that case the amount was paid by a treasury bill, which was not encashed. It was not equivalent to bill of exchange. That treasury bill was in respect of compensation. The claimant received the same in the early hours of the day and in the latter part of that day, he protested about the quantum of compensation. The Court held that Section 31(2) proviso 2 came in operation and the claimant was incompetent to claim enhanced compensation. In that case, it was urged on behalf of the claimant that words, "receive the amount otherwise than under protest" appearing in proviso 2 were different from the words, "receive such payment under protest" under proviso I of that section. The Court on elaborate reasons rejected that distinction and discussed the anomalies that would follow if the distinction is accepted. The Court held that the said distinction was artificial. If the receipt of amount was to be construed as receipt of payment in cash and if the receipt under payment is to be construed otherwise the objector will have to file protest at the treasury because it is a treasury which is going to make the payment and not the person tendering the compensation contemplated under Section 31 of the Act. Similarly, it was also pointed out that if this distinction was maintained, a person may encash the treasury bill after a long time and may during that time lodge a protest. That was for all practical purposes incapable of conception. The Court, therefore, held that the payment by treasury bill was equivalent to payment of compensation of amount and the main ratio that can be deduced from this ruling is that the party has to prefer the protest before receiving the amount, It would be found that when a contract is concluded and if the protest is filed later on, the party shall be deemed to have resiled from the contract for no obvious reason and such a situation cannot be contemplated in a matter analogous to the concluded contract.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India, Delhi vs Sagwa And Ors. on 20 October, 1972

7. Mr. Francis has also relied upon the case Sardara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 Cur Lj 68; S. M. A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. District Collector Chittoor, and Mrs. S. Thomas v. collector of Madras, Air 1958 Mad 186. In none of these case was any protest made at any time after the tender of the amount and title the time of receipt of the amount. These cases, therefore, earlier fall within the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the said Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next