Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing T.C. Balakrishna Ayyar vs Pichamuthu Pillai on 3 August, 1921

In Re: Chinnathambi Asari vs Unknown on 14 March, 1958

The ruling of Ramesam, J., in Balakrishna Ayyar v. Pichamuthu Pillai (1921) 15 L.W. 186 approved in the Division Bench ruling referred to above, dealt with a case where the decree ex parte had been made on 26th January, 1920 and the draft security bond had been filed in Court on 6th February, 1920 and the fair bond on 1st April, 1920. On the facts of that case the fair security bond was not filed until after the time for applying for setting aside the decree had expired. Therefore, the question of the date of registration, and indeed the question whether the document was registered at all, became immaterial. The filing of the fair bond was itself beyond the period prescribed for setting aside the decree. Learned Counsel referred to various other rulings, which it is unnecessary that I specify, in which it was held that a security bond which required registration but which had not been registered could not be regarded as satisfying the requirements of the proviso to Section 17(1).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puthiottil Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup vs Mayimmoli Raman Nayar on 8 April, 1942

There may be much to be said for this point of view, but it seems to me that I ought to follow the authority of Balakrishna Aiyar v. Pichamuthu Pillai (1921) 15 L.W. 186. which deals directly with this section rather than the other cases which deal only with cognate provisions of law. Logically too it seems to me that the view of Ramesam, J., is right, because there is in Section 17 an alternative given, and it is quite clear that in no circumstances can there be any deposit of the decree amount at any time later than thirty days. It seems logical therefore to assume that if the decree amount must be deposited within that time something effectual must be done within that time in the matter of giving security. If the expression "give security" be analysed, it cannot be seriously argued that the mere production in Court of a piece of paper with a memorandum of property upon it affords either the Court or the decree-holder any kind of security whatever. In these circumstances I can see no sufficient reason for interfering with the order of the District Munsiff.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Pilla Satyanarayana vs Vadaparthi Ramabrahmam on 23 October, 1959

In Balakrishna Ayyar v. V. Pichamuthu Piliai, 15 Mad LW 186 : (AIR 1922 Mad 330), the facts were as follows ; A small cause suit was decreed ex parte on 26th January 1920, and the application to set it aside was made on the 27th without the necessary deposit or security as required by the proviso to Section 17, but on 6th February 1920, the defendant filed a draft security bond which was tested and found acceptable on 9th March 1920, and the actual bond was executed on 1st April 1920.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P. Murugayya Pillai vs Seethalakshmi Ammal on 7 February, 1958

In the case of security mentioned in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, there has been a uniform course of decisions in this Court, starting from the decision of Ramesam, J., in Balakrishna Ayyar v. Pichamuthu Pillai (1921) 15 L.W. 186 followed by the decision of King, J., in Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup v. Raman Nayar (1942) 2 M.L.J. 425 and culminating in the decision of the Bench of this Court consisting of Govinda Menon and Ramaswami, JJ., in Marimuthu Gounder v. Ponnammal . These decisions have all held that furnishing security within the meaning of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act should be construed as putting into Court a properly drafted security bond engrossed on stamp paper, which, if approved by the Court, could be converted into an enforceable security in law. Mr. Jagadisa Ayyar argues with some force that there should be no distinction in principle between furnishing security as required under Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act and giving security in other cases governed by the Civil Procedure Code, where the purpose is the same.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Venkatarama Ayyar vs Ramaswami Ayyer on 31 January, 1936

It appears to me that the delay by reason of which the full security was not furnished within the time of limitation was due to the action of the Court and cannot be laid at the door of the judgment-debtor. In this particular case the last day for filing the application was 2nd April. The judgment-debtor presented is draft bond on 15th March. If the fart had ordered him to represent that bond after having it registered within the time allowed there can be no possible doubt that the judgment-debtor could have done so. In that case his application would have been in time even according to the reasoning in Balakrishna Ayyar v. Pichamuthu Pillai 1922 15 MLW 186 which is relied on by the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kalisetti Penchalu Setti vs Potireddi Subbareddi on 30 March, 1943

4. When the petitioner's application for an order setting aside the ex parte decree came before the Court, the respondent took the objection that the application was not maintainable because security had not been furnished within thirty days of the 31st December, 1941, the date when the petitioner says he became aware of the ex parte decree. The respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in Balakrishna Iyer v. Pichamuthu Pillai (1921) 15 L.W. 186, and Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup v. Raman Nayar (1942) 2 M.L.J. 425. In the former of these cases, Ramesam, J., held that the mere filing of a draft bond was not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He pointed out that the draft security bond was a mere piece of paper and it could not have the effect of a security bond duly executed and registered which alone could be enforced.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Swarna Rajamma vs Thota Venkiah on 28 February, 1949

2. Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami has relied on the decision of Ramesam, J. in Balakrishna Aiyar v. Pichamuthu Pilla (1921) 15 L.W.186 followed by King, J., in Chettiyalan kanakurup v. Raman Nair (1942) 2 M.L.J. 425. That was a decision under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act where a defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed on 26th. January, 1920, filed a draft security bond on 6th February, 1920, which was ultimately accepted on 9th March, 1920, and he only filed his fair bond on the 1st April, 1920. It was held that the filing of the draft bond was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts; Act.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

N.P. Ganapathy Naicker And Ors. vs A.M. Govindarajulu Naidu on 22 March, 1946

In taking this view the learned Judge followed the decision of Ramesam, J., in Balakrishna Iyer v. Pichamuthu Pillai (1921) 15 L.W. 186, which is also a case which arose under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. King, J., in the decision just cited however took note of the fact that under the general law a different view had been taken in this Court. In a short note case reported in 52 M.L.J. (Short Notes) page 53, Jackson, J., held that, where security was ordered to be furnished within a particular time in an application for stay of sale, if security, was tendered within the time, even though tested after the time, and it proved to be eventually sufficient the petitioner must be deemed to have complied with the order of the Court and no petition for extension of time was necessary.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1