S.AIYAR, NAPIER
C. A. Easwara Iyer – Appellant
Versus
K. Govindarajulu Naidu – Respondent
Napier, J.
1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (XV of 1882). It is much to be regretted that the Judges of that Court did not adhere more closely to the directions of the section in making their reference. They do not state clearly the points on which there is a difference of opinion. They practically refer the whole case to this Court saying that they are not agreed on the question whether "under the circumstances of the case, the bond should be enforced against the surety, the defendant." In my opinion this is not a proper reference and were it not that one of the Judges of that Court has now retired, I would, speaking for myself, return the reference for resubmission in strict accordance with law. As that course is now impossible, I will deal with it as if the reference was on three points:--(1) whether there was any jurisdiction in the Court to take the bond, (2) whether the protection order granted by the High Court in the exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction operated to make the bond void and (3) whether the sum mentioned in the bond was penal. These three points have been elaborately argued before us, on the second point
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.