Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Dupada Madappa (Deceased) And Ors. vs Alampalli Athmaramayya Setti And Ors. on 12 February, 1954 cites

S. Ramasubbier And Anr. vs P. Rama Aiyar And Ors. on 4 November, 1940

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents cited the decision in -- 'Ramsubbier v. Rama Iyer', AIR 1941 Mad 356 (A). In so far as it is material, the facts in that case were as follows: There was a promissory note dated 14-8-1922 executed by P and his sons to one S. S died and subsequently there was a partition between the two sons of S. viz.. X and Y. After division, the debtors/ the sons of P, executed on 19-8-1925. two promissory notes, one to X for a part of the amount due under the original debt and another to Y for the balance. The question was whether the original debt could be said to be renewed or included in the two fresh documents which were executed in 1925 within the meaning of explanation to Section 8 as it stood then. The sums for which the two later promissory notes were executed aggregated to the original debt. Nevertheless, it was held that the Explanation did not apply.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Grandhi Hanumantha Rao vs Yeduvaka China Ramu Naidu And Ors. on 18 November, 1942

Learned counsel for the appellants brought to our notice the decision of Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri JJ. in -- 'Hanumantha Rao v. Ramu Naidu", AIR 1943 Mad 338 (C). In that case there was a splitting of the liability under a promissory note, and two documents were executed for the making up of the total liability. But the contracts evidenced by the two documents differed from each other and from the original in their terms. It was held that neither of the fresh contracts could be treated as a renewal of a part of the preexisting liability. The learned Judges held that a partial inclusion of a portion of a pre-existing debt in one of several new contracts with different terms could not be regarded as a renewal of the previous debt. In their opinion, it was neither practicable nor desirable to treat the two separate contracts as if they formed together a single debt renewing the previous liability.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

A. Sankara Aiyar vs Yagappan Servai on 21 August, 1940

This case can be distinguished from the present on the ground that here we have two contracts with identical terms though in respect of one of them there is also security for the repayment of the amount covered by that contract. The learned Judges in -- 'AIR 1943 Mad 338 (C)' distinguished a prior decision of theirs in -- 'Sankara Aiyar v. Yagappan Servaj', AIR 1941 Mad 193 (D). In that case, a promissory note was executed by a mortgagor for the amount of interest due. A suit was subsequently filed on the promissory note and an application was made to scale down the decree. It was held that the promissory note must be taken to be a renewal of the previous liability to pay interest and must be scaled down under Section 8 as a debt for interest. The creditor in effect took a fresh document for a separable portion of the debt due under the document.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1