Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Lakshumanan Chetty And Ors. vs R.M.K.S. Sadayappa Chetty And Ors. on 15 August, 1918
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.
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rashbehary Lal Mandar vs Anand Ram And Ors. on 15 June, 1915
duly authorised either by the action of the party indebted
or by force of law or order of the Court has been followed
in other High Courts also (Vide: Rashbehary v. Anand Ram
(1); Ramcharan Das V. Gaya Prasad (2) ; Lakshumanan v.
Sadayappa (3 ) and Thankamma v. Kunhamma (4) and in our
opinion represents the correct state of law.
Mr. Jha has next argued that, in any case, law does not
authorise the Receiver of an Estate to make acknowledgments
of debt due from the estate.
Currimbhai Abdulhusain vs Ahmedali Lukmanji on 13 September, 1932
For this proposition he has
relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Currimbhai
v. Ahmedali (5). In that case it was held that an
acknowledgment by an official assignee will not amount to an
acknowledgment by an agent of the debtor. Though this case
does not deal strictly with the case of a Receiver, Mr. Jha
has relied on the reasoning therein as supporting his con-
tention.
1