Back
V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Xavier – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank Ltd. – Respondent
1. lthough this second appeal raises only a humdrum point in execution as to whether a judgment-debtor can avail himself of the immunity from detention in the civil prison on the score of serious illness, as provided in S.59, Civil Procedure Code, Sri M. S. Kurien, learned counsel for the appellant, has engagingly argued his case on the exalted basis of the human rights, enshrined in the civil and political covenants agreed to by the member nations of United Nations Organisation, including India, and has passionately pleaded for a humanistic interpretation and application of the law relating to arrest and detention as a means of enforcing a decree for money.
2. I shall deal with the two points separately. The decree holder respondent obtained a decree as early as 26-8-1960 against the judgment-debtor who was paying but small sums of money, leaving a large balance and so his arrest and detention in the civil prison was sought by the decree holder. On 20-10-1966 the Court found that the judgment-debtor had means to pay the amount of the decree and had neglected to pay it. This order has become final and is not available for attack before me in this second appeal although c
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," "overruled by," or similar language that typically signify such treatment. Therefore, based on the provided information, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed / Cited Cases:
KADRU KUNHU ABDUL KARIM VS NARAYANA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI - 1971 0 Supreme(Ker) 60: References Madras decisions and the Division Bench decision Palai Central Bank Ltd. (1959 (I) KLR. 909), indicating reliance or citation, which suggests this case has been treated as authoritative or persuasive.
P. M. MUZAMMIL VS CANARA BANK WITH HEAD OFFICE AT BANGALORE - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 513: Cites Xavier v. Canara Bank Ltd. (1969 KLT 927) and Mohamed Ibrahim v. ... State Bank of Travancore (AIR 1964 Madras 233), indicating these cases are considered relevant and are being followed or referenced.
Sulaiman Kunju VS Dinesh Lal - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 952: Discusses Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927) in the context of judicial reasoning, implying that this case remains relevant and is being followed.
Ramasamy VS Pushpa - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4073: Mentions the words of Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927) in a judicial opinion, indicating continued citation or reliance.
Suresh Pillai VS Recovery Officer - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 700: Cites Canara Bank Ltd. (1969 KLT 927) and discusses its legal principles, suggesting it remains authoritative.
Rajendran R. VS Union Bank of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 543: References Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927) regarding legal concepts like “utmost good faith,” implying continued relevance.
RAMAN NADAR CHANDRAN VS PONNUMUTHAN NADAR RAJU - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 742: Also cites Canara Bank Ltd. (1969 KLT 927), indicating it is still considered good law.
KARUNAKARAN PILLAI VS JOSEPH - 1975 0 Supreme(Ker) 67: Discusses observations in Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927), suggesting ongoing influence.
Distinguished / Clarified Cases:
RAMAN NADAR CHANDRAN VS PONNUMUTHAN NADAR RAJU - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 742: Cites the case in the context of other decisions, possibly indicating clarification or differentiation.
KARUNAKARAN PILLAI VS JOSEPH - 1975 0 Supreme(Ker) 67: Refers to the observations of Krishna Iyer J. in Xavier, which may suggest clarification or elaboration on the case’s principles.
Uncited / Neutral Cases:
KADRU KUNHU ABDUL KARIM VS NARAYANA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI - 1971 0 Supreme(Ker) 60, P. M. MUZAMMIL VS CANARA BANK WITH HEAD OFFICE AT BANGALORE - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 513, Sulaiman Kunju VS Dinesh Lal - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 952, Ramasamy VS Pushpa - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4073, Suresh Pillai VS Recovery Officer - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 700, Rajendran R. VS Union Bank of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 543, RAMAN NADAR CHANDRAN VS PONNUMUTHAN NADAR RAJU - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 742, KARUNAKARAN PILLAI VS JOSEPH - 1975 0 Supreme(Ker) 67: These cases are primarily referencing or citing Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927) or similar decisions, indicating their treatment as authoritative or relevant.
Francis VS Palai Central Bank Limited - 1959 0 Supreme(Ker) 372: The description indicates the court's finding on a factual matter about debtor’s means without referencing prior or subsequent case law treatment, making its legal treatment unclear.
The references to "See Xavier v. Canara Bank Ltd. 1969 KLT 927" and similar citations do not specify whether the case was followed, distinguished, or criticized, so their treatment remains somewhat ambiguous beyond citation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
