Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshumanan Chetty And Ors. vs R.M.K.S. Sadayappa Chetty And Ors. on 15 August, 1918

Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgar Shah vs Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deoand ... on 21 April, 1960

Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Sanyal, on behalf of the respondent to the fact that a contrary view has been taken in Lakshmanan Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty (6). Mr. Sanyal has argued that in respect of a debt due from the estate the Receiver of the estate fully represents the owners of the estate and that once it is held, as it must be, that the Receiver had authority to pay the debt, Mr. Sanyal argues, it must necessarily be held that acknowledgment of a debt as incidental to the Receiver's duties in respect of the payment of the debts, is also within his authority. So, he argues that in every case an acknowledgment by a Receiver is an acknowledgment by a duly authorised agent of the debtor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 87 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Ramagopal Naicker vs Muthukrishna Ayyar And Anr. on 20 July, 1956

11. Then he discusses a large body of case-law on the subject. This decision was not concerned with an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. But when once we come to the conclusion that the Official Receiver is the person in whom the property of the insolvent vests then there can be no doubt that he comes within the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the decision in Lakshmanan Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty (1918) 35 M.L.J. 571, wherein it was held that an acknowledgement of a debt due by a firm under dissolution made by a Receiver of that firm is valid to save limitation if it is authorised by the terms of the order appointing the Receiver. These observations are not very helpful with regard to what we have to consider in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramagopal Naicker vs Muthukrishna Ayyar And Anr. on 20 July, 1956

Learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the decision in Lakshumanan Chetti v. Sadayappa Chetti, 35 Mad Lj 571: (AIR. 1919 Mad 816) (J), wherein it was held that an acknowledgment of a debt due by a firm under dissolution made by a receiver of that firm is valid to have limitation if it is authorised by the terms of the order appointing the receiver. These observations are not very helpful with regard to what we have to consider in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Govindasami Pillai vs Dasai Goundan And Anr. on 19 April, 1921

In Lakshumanan Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty 48 Ind. Cas. 179 : (1918) M. W. N. 877 : 8 L. W. 594 : 35 M. L. J. 571 : 25 M. L. T. 371. a Bench of this Court held that an acknowledgment of a debt made by a Receiver appointed by the Court on behalf of a firm under dissolution is a valid acknowledgment saving limitation by reason of the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act as he was an agent authorized to make the acknowledgment.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Manapali Krishnayya vs Kaza Seetharamayya And Anr. on 19 March, 1937

In Lakshumanan Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty 35 M.L.J. 571 : 48 Ind. Cas. 179 : A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 816 : 8 L.W. 594 : (1918) M.W.N. 877 : 25 M.L.T. 371, it was held that where a receiver in an action for dissolution of partnership had authority to do all things necessary for the preservation of the assets of the firm, an acknowledgment of liability made by him in respect of a claim against the, partnership was held a sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act, to prevent the claim being barred against the partners. Their Lordships observe that in many cases an acknowledgment of a debt may be necessary to save the estate from loss and thus necessary for the preservation of the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge in this case find that the acknowledgment was made to prevent the creditor from filing a suit and to avoid unnecessary expense to the partnership. Therefore, I am of opinion that. Ex. F would avail as an acknowledgment of liability even as against defendant No. 2.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Manapalli Krishnayya vs Kaza Seetharamayya And Anr. on 19 March, 1937

In Lakshmanan Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty (1918) 35 M.L.J. 571 it was held that where a receiver in an action for dissolution of partnership had authority to do all things necessary for the preservation of the assets of the firm, an acknowledgment of liability made by him in respect of a claim against the partnership, was held a sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act to prevent the claim being barred against the partners. Their Lordships observe that in many cases an acknowledgment of a debt may be necessary to save the estate from loss and thus necessary for the preservation of the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge in this case finds that the acknowledgment was made to prevent the creditor from filing a suit and to avoid unnecessary expense to the partnership. Therefore I am of opinion that Ex. F would avail as an acknowledgment of liability even as against the second defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1