Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)
K.S. Raghavan And Ors. vs Iswara Pattar Gramom Parameswara ... on 27 November, 1970 cites

Ramalinga Adaviar And Anr. vs Meenakshisundaram Pillai And Ors. on 26 August, 1924

The learned Judges of the Patna High Court referred to the Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court which we have just now referred to and followed it. We recall at this stage the decision of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J. in Ramalinga Adaviar's case, AIR 1925 Mad 177 wherein also the learned Judge laid down the same principle after referring to the English decision in 1880-5 AC 085.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M. Kunju Nair vs Narayanan Nair on 29 April, 1932

6. Then we have three other decisions, all of the year 1933, the earliest being M. Kunju Nair v. Narayanan Nair, (AIR 1933 Mad 252) by Anantakrishna Ayyar. J. The learned Judge held that a particular stipulation in kuri vari might be in the nature of a penalty: but, in the opinion of the learned judge, the provision to pay all the future instalments in a lump in the case of default by a prized subscriber in the payment of any future instalment provided for by the kuri vari was by itself not a penalty.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Burjorji Shapurji Sheth vs Madhavlal Jesingbhai on 16 February, 1934

10. In the light of these decisions, what emerges is that the entire kuri vari, as a whole, has to be considered to see whether the transaction is unconscionable or penal. (Probably, particular provisions in the kuri vari may receive special attention in particular cases). This position appears to have been accepted even in the strongest case in favour of the respondents. The second aspect is that the provisions of the kuri vari have to be tested In the light of the principle laid down in John Walling-ford's case, (1880) 5 AC 685 and in Burjorji Shapurji Sheth's case, AIR 1934 Bom 370 by Beaumont, C. J. and followed by the Patna High Court in Khetro Swain's case, AIR 1943 Pat 403. The third aspect is that, in applying this test, it must be borne in mind that a stakeholder of a chit fund runs extra risks, and the unconscionable or penal nature of the kuri vari has to be tested in the light of these circumstances, viz., that he is entitled to heavier compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Thanuvan Velayudhan vs Velayudhan Mudaliar Appavu Mudaliar ... on 22 October, 1962

24. One of us had occasion to consider in Thanuvan Velayudhan v. Velayudhan Mudaliar, (AIR 1964 Ker 234) the difference between a debt bond or a promissory note payable in instalments and a kuri security bond by a prized subscriber to secure the future instalments. It was held that in the former the debt became payable immediately, while in the latter the several instalments fell due only on the several future dates. (What was considered in that case was the applicability of Article 75 of the Limitation Act of 1908 to a kuri security bond).
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1