SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1943 Supreme(Mad) 261

SOMAYYA
Gnanasiromani Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Somayya, J.

1. The respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant under which a sum of about Rs. 16,000 is said to be still due. The respondent applied for arrest of the appellant in execution of his decree. The appellant pleaded that by virtue of the provisions of Section 51, Civil P.C., as amended in 1936 he could not be arrested. Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 and the explanation are relied upon. Clause (b) of the proviso so far as it is necessary for this case runs thus:

Provided that, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied....that the judgment-debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same.

The explanation runs thus:

In the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purposes of Clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or cust








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top