Skip to content


Venkatakrishnacharya Vs. Peter George Coelho - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad170
AppellantVenkatakrishnacharya
RespondentPeter George Coelho
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, 1859, sections 273, 275 - discharge of judgment-debtor on offer to place estate at disposal of court--act of bad faith subsequent to discharge. - .....respondent might, after that order, have been re-arrested, if it was shown he committed any of the acts mentioned in section 275 before the order for release was made. the act provides that, if the release was obtained by deceiving the court, or if the debtor has, before the order, done any of the acts mentioned in section 275, he may be re-arrested. it is admitted that none of the acts mentioned in section 275 has been done by the respondent before the order for release. but it is contended that, after the order for release, the defendant was guilty of receiving property of his and disposing of it, which property was pledged to the petitioner. it is not alleged that the respondent did not return this property and offer to place it at the disposal of the court. the petitioner had means.....
Judgment:

Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.

1. The respondent was arrested and brought before the Sadr Amin and made an application under Section 273 of Act VIII of 1859 for discharge from arrest.

2. The application was made on the 21st of June 1871, and, on that occasion, the respondent made a deposition, which he subscribed, and set out his property in detail, and stated he was willing to place it at the disposal of the Court. Thereupon, the Judge made an order to release him. The order states that the petitioner's Vakil elected to proceed against the property. This statement does not interfere with the legal effect of the order for release made upon compliance by the respondent with the provisions entitling him to release.

3. No doubt, the respondent might, after that order, have been re-arrested, if it was shown he committed any of the acts mentioned in Section 275 before the order for release was made. The Act provides that, if the release was obtained by deceiving the Court, or if the debtor has, before the order, done any of the acts mentioned in Section 275, he may be re-arrested. It is admitted that none of the acts mentioned in Section 275 has been done by the respondent before the order for release. But it is contended that, after the order for release, the defendant was guilty of receiving property of his and disposing of it, which property was pledged to the petitioner. It is not alleged that the respondent did not return this property and offer to place it at the disposal of the Court. The petitioner had means open to him under the Code to take possession of that property. He neglected doing so, but though that did not justify the respondent in giving it to another creditor, yet the petitioner might have taken other proceedings against the respondent. However, he was not entitled to re-arrest the respondent for such act done after the order of release.

4. It is clear that there was not an appeal to the Judge, as the order was one in execution of a decree under Section 588, Article 29. However, assuming this to be so, we have now to see, under Section 622. whether the Subordinate Judge was right. We think that he was not, and that the defendant was not liable to be arrested upon the facts.

5. We therefore set aside the order for the arrest of the defendant, but ' without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //