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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 105

KRISHNASWAMI AYYANGAR
Sait Sogmull Lachiram Firm of Tenali – Appellant
Versus
Vallabhaneni Parandhamayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.

1. A somewhat interesting question relating to the construction of the proviso to Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 arises for consideration in this revision petition. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a small cause suit in which he sued to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 on foot of a promissory note executed on 10th April, 1930, by the first respondent. The other respondents are the undivided sons of the first respondent. The suit was filed on 12th November, 1934, that is to say, one year seven months and two days after the period of limitation and is therefore prima facie time barred unless the plaintiff could claim the benefit of an exemption. To this end he relies on Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which runs as follows:

Where an order of adjudication has been annulled under this Act, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application for the execution of a decree (other than a suit or application in inspect of which the leave of the Court was obtained under sub-Section (2) of Section 28) which might have been brought or made but for the making At an order of adjudication under this Act, th









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