Skip to content


In Re: Ar. Al. Sv. Sevugan Chettiar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad56; (1943)2MLJ377
AppellantIn Re: Ar. Al. Sv. Sevugan Chettiar and anr.
Excerpt:
- - order 1. we are satisfied that the original certificate has been lost, and the applicant is entitled to a duplicate; 1218 of 1943 which was filed for the issue of a duplicate certificate under circumstances like those in the present case, kuppuswami ayyar, j. 2. we have considered the matter and we think that the proper order to make when the court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost is to issue a duplicate certificate and to state therein that it is issued on the representation that the original has not been cashed. 3. we hold that if the court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost, the proper order is to issue a duplicate enfaced as such......certificate under circumstances like those in the present case, kuppuswami ayyar, j., did not issue a duplicate certificate but only issued a certificate to the effect that a refund of a particular sum was ordered on a previous petition and that the refund certificate was issued by the high court on a particular date.2. we have considered the matter and we think that the proper order to make when the court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost is to issue a duplicate certificate and to state therein that it is issued on the representation that the original has not been cashed. otherwise in a case where the original is lost, say within a month, the party may not get adequate relief by getting a certificate in the form ordered in c.m.p. no. 1218 of 1943. for then the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We are satisfied that the original certificate has been lost, and the applicant is entitled to a duplicate; otherwise the previous order would have been in vain. There are of course no statutory rules governing this matter. We are only acting in the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction to do justice. The only question is as to the form of the order to be made. It has been brought to our notice that in C.M.P. No. 1218 of 1943 which was filed for the issue of a duplicate certificate under circumstances like those in the present case, Kuppuswami Ayyar, J., did not issue a duplicate certificate but only issued a certificate to the effect that a refund of a particular sum was ordered on a previous petition and that the refund certificate was issued by the High Court on a particular date.

2. We have considered the matter and we think that the proper order to make when the Court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost is to issue a duplicate certificate and to state therein that it is issued on the representation that the original has not been cashed. Otherwise in a case where the original is lost, say within a month, the party may not get adequate relief by getting a certificate in the form ordered in C.M.P. No. 1218 of 1943. For then the party will have to abide by the decision of the Accountant General under Section 31 of the Madras Financial and Account Code.

3. We hold that if the Court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost, the proper order is to issue a duplicate enfaced as such.


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