Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Nagarpur Sambayya vs Nagarpur Pedda Subbayya on 13 August, 1937

Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs Orissa State Electricity Board on 23 October, 1979

Their Lordships relying upon the case of Nagaruru Sambayya v. Tanjatur Subbayya, (1908) ILR 31 Mad 330, and considering the Bombay and Lahore views aforesaid observed that by acceptance of the bond the court merely approved the substance and not the form of the security bond and, therefore, the execution of the bond did not constitute an act of the court or a step in judicial proceedings.
Orissa High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dondapati John vs Vaddi Subrahmani And Anr. on 29 October, 1964

(18) There is a catena of decisions which lay down that proceedings presented before an order of adjudication is made are outside the purview of section 28 (2) . Sambayya v. Pedda Subbayya, 1937 - 2 Mad L J 703 : (AIR 1938 Mad 19), which dealt with various aspects of section 28 (2), decided that section 28 (2) was inapplicable to actions commenced before the order of adjudication was made. Venkataramana Rao J., who spoke for the Court, observed :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Label Art Press And Anr. vs Indo European Machinery Co. (P.) Ltd. on 9 March, 1973

10. The contrary view was held by the High Court of Madras in Nagang Sarnbayya's case, (1908) 2nd 31 Ma 3 0 (supra), Considering the bond given under Section 545 of the old Civil Procedure Code (which did not contain the statutory form before us) the Court observed that the bond effected, a transfer to the Court of an interest in specific immovable property to secure a future debt and it constituted a mortgage as defined by Section 58 of the Transfer of -Property Act and, therefore it required registration under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act. The Court rejected the argument that the acceptance of the security bond by the Court gave validity to the bond and it held that the acceptance was merely an intimation by the Court that the property given as security was sufficient for the purpose. It is, however, noteworthy that the practice of the Madras High Court, was as noticed in the judgment, governed by the Rule 117 of the High Court Rules (Appellate Side) which provided that when security offered consisted of immovable property, the appellant must file a mortgage bond duly registered together with specifications of surety's title. Obviously, if the statutory rules of the Court required registration, it cannot without registration be said to have been given in accordance with the law to acquire efficacy. In my opinion, the decision 01 the High Court of Madras turned on its own facts and the rules of the Court. I am, however, with the greatest respect, unable to agree that the acceptance of the security bond by the Court does not lend validity and efficacy to it and it was merely an intimation by the Court that the property given as security was sufficient. I am of the view that the acceptance of the security bond by the Court implied that the Court accepted the security furnished by the surety and it was satisfied with regard to its contents, legality, form and validity of the bond as well as the sufficiency of the property. Without such acceptance, the bond was not effective. Even a non-testamentary instrument executed in favor of a private party requires acceptance before it becomes effective giving rise to respective rights and obligations of the parties and any unilateral contract or conveyance without its acceptance by the promiseor transferee, fails to bring about the change in legal relationship.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

R. Subbaraya Gounder (Died) And Ors. vs K.R. Eswaramoorthy Gounder on 3 August, 1962

6. The other question, namely, the validity of the endorsement made during the extended period of limitation is covered by authority of this Court. A Bench of this Court consisting of Pandrang Row and Venkataramana Rao JJ. had to consider a similar question in Sambayya v. Pedda Subbayya, 1937-2 Mad LJ 703 : (AIR 1338 Mad 19), with reference to Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That provision in Clause 2 enabled the period from the date of the order of adjudication of the debtor as insolvent to the date of annulment of adjudication to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for bringing suits against the insolvent whenever the order r of adjudication had been annulled. The effect of an acknowledgement of debt made during the period when the period of exclusion enacted by Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act was effective was considered and the view taken by the Bench was that such acknowledgement would he effective to save the suit from the bar of limitation.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Savada Gounder vs Veerappa Gounder on 17 November, 1958

That was held not to serve as a Fresh starling point of limitation. On the other hand, Mr. T. S. Kuppuswami Aiyar for the respondent refers me to the decision reported in Sambayya v. Pedda Subbayya, 1937-2 Mad LJ 703 : (AIR 1938 Mad 19). In that case, there was a statutory exclusion of time by reason of an insolvency which was later on annulled. The plaintiff sought to escape the bar of limitation by alleging that he was entitled to exclude the whole period, 'during the proceedings in insolvency were pending coupled with an acknowledgment which was given during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Gopal Udayar vs Mangala Udayar And Anr. on 16 March, 1961

In Sambayya v. Pedda Subbayya (1937) 2 M.L.J. 703, the question arose whether the period of limitation should stand extended by the period that intervened between the adjudication and the subsequent instalment. It was held that this period could be deducted, the principal basis for the decision being that the statute of limitation must be read side by side with the other enactments which affect the period of limitation. Except for the broad principle that the law of limitation does not stand by itself, it is not necessary to refer to this decision any further.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bichal Naidu vs S.K. Muthuramalingam And Anr. on 15 February, 1962

Reference may also be made here to N. Sambayya v. N. Pedda Subbayya (1937) 3 M.L.J. 703, wherein a Bench of this Court decided that, with reference to insolvency proceedings, a creditor could deduct only the period from the date of adjudication to the date of annulment, as the operation of the statute of limitation could be regarded as suspended only for that period. In the present case, though the suit is truly upon the negotiable instrument which was executed on 24th March, 1954, the learned District Munsif has given a finding that the plaintiff was entitled to add one year, six months and 26 days to the three years which he would normally have from 24th March, 1954, for the Computation of limitation. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that this view is quite untenable, and cannot be recognised as valid even prima facie. If that argument is to be accepted the question then is whether the suit has to be dismissed in its entirety as time-barred, or whether the suit claim could be upheld in respect of the three instalments excluding the first instalment for which it was restricted, after the return of the plaint by the Sub-Court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

In Re: Velayudham Chettiar vs Unknown on 24 February, 1958

4. As throwing further doubt on the validity of the proposition stated in ILR 47 Mad 120: (AIR 1924 Mad 103), learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sambayya v. P. Subbayya 1937-2 Mad LJ 703 : (AIR 193S Mad 19). That case dealt with limitation under the Limitation Act with reference to a suit instituted in the ordinary courts and not with proof of a debt in the insolvency of the debtor. The question in that case turned on the construction of Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next