Venktrapragada Viraraghava Rao And ... vs Sri Rao Bahadur Mothey Narasimharao ... on 20 April, 1949
1024) was wrong and the later decision in Sundara Mudaliar v. Rathavelu Mudaliar, 52 Mad. 521: (A. I. R. (16) 1929 Mad. 429) was right.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.39 seconds)Saraswathi Ammal And Anr. vs Rajagopal Ammal on 5 January, 1951
In fact neither the learned Judges who decided 'Ramanathan Chettiar v. Subramania Chetti 51 M.L.J. 295, in the way they did, nor the same Judges in 'Sundara Mudaliar v. Ratnavelu Mudaliar, 52 Mad.
Venktrapragada Viraraghava Rao And ... vs Sri Rao Bahadur Mothey Narasimharao ... on 20 April, 1949
is, in my judgment this, that it has not only accepted Sundara Mudaliar v. Ratnavelu Mudaliar (1926) 56 M.L.J. 476 : I,L,R. 53 Mad.
M/S. Telecommunication Consultants ... vs M/S. Creative Entrepreneurs on 29 August, 2022
M/s. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v M/s. Creative Entrepreneurs
Page No.4 of 10
Gobardhan Das v Ramanand Jurimull, MANU/BH/0161/1929 and
Shanmugasundara Mudaliar And Ors. v S. Ratnavelu Mudaliar,
MANU/TN/0042/1932.5
Gangadara Ayyar And Ors. vs Subramania Sastrigal And Ors. on 26 March, 1946
5. There are two decisions of this Court which support the petitioners' application for leave to appeal. They are Shunmuga Sunday a Mudaliar v. Ratnavelu Mudaliar (1928) 56 M.L.J. 476 : I.L.R. 52 Mad.
Province Of West Bengal vs Surja Kanta Jana on 15 May, 1953
18. The principle underlying such cases is that it is the Court which seeks to remedy through proceedings in restitution, the injury which has been caused to a party who has been ultimately successful on the final result of the litigation. In all such cases all the injury that might have been done to a person is to be made good. It was further observed in that case.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Govinda Raja Rice Mill Contractors Co., ... on 6 August, 1964
(21) In Mulla's Civil Procedure Code at page 452 the learned commentator relied upon Shanmugasundara v. Ratnavelu, ILR 55 Mad 1025 : (AIR 1933 Mad 33(2) ) and stated that if the applicant has paid money into Court by way of security to obtain a stay of execution he will be entitled to interest as for the use of the money of which he has been deprived, although the opposite party has not withdrawn the money.
Kanthimathi Mills, Ltd. By Managing ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer For ... on 20 March, 1959
The true principle upon which relief by way of restitution may be claimed has been laid down by a Bench of this Court as early as 1932 in Shanmugasundara Mudaliar v. Ratnavelu Mudaliar (1933) 63 M.L.J. 383. That Bench pointed out that the basis of the rule of restitution is not making the unsuccessful party disgorge any profit he had made out of the decree reversed, but giving compensation to the successful party in the appeal for the loss which he had suffered by obeying the decree of the trial Court. If this principle is kept in mind, it should make no difference whether the excess amount deposited by the Government was a voluntary deposit or an involuntary deposit as a result of execution levied by the decree-holder. It was certainly open to the Government to obey the decree straightway without execution being levied and to take steps to safeguard its interests in case the appeal succeeded. That was the effect of the order of the High Court in directing security to be furnished by the decree-holder before drawing-out the entire amount. But then there is one distinction which may become relevant in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1957. The order of the High Court directing security to be furnished for the entire amount may not be relied on by the Government as a protection to deny interest to the decree-holder in so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 15,000 and odd which was ultimately found by the High Court to be the amount due to the decree-holder claimant. But the claim for interest made by the Government in C.M.A. No. 42 of 1957 does not relate to this amount, and, therefore, the Government is entitled to claim interest on the excess amount which was granted by the decree of the Subordinate Judge. C.M.A. No. 42 of 1957 is therefore dismissed with costs.
Madras Kanthimathi Mills Ltd. vs Special Land Acquisition Officer For ... on 20 March, 1959
The true principle upon which relief by way of restitution may be claimed has been laid down by a Bench of this court as early as 1932 in Shanmugasundara Mudaliar v. Ratnavelu Mudaliar, 63 Mad LJ 383: (AIR 1933 Mad 33(2)). That Bench pointed out that the basis of the rule of restitution is not making the unsuccessful party disgorge any profit he had made out of the decree reversed, but giving compensation to the successful party in the appeal for the loss which he had suffered by obeying the decree of the trial court. If this principle is kept in mind, it should make no difference whether the excess amount deposited by the Government was a voluntary deposit or an involuntary deposit as a result of execution levied by the decree-holder.
Pappu Reddiar vs P.S.V. Rm. Ramanatha Iyer on 25 June, 1962
Both the cases referred to above are in accord with the decision of a Bench of this court in Shanmugasundara v. Ratnavelu, ILR 55 Mad 1025: (AIR 1933 Mad 33(2)).