Skip to content


Punchapagesa Aiyar Vs. Subramanya Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.872a
AppellantPunchapagesa Aiyar
RespondentSubramanya Aiyar
Excerpt:
.....excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the property, the crowns debt is entitled to have priority over the claim of others. in the absence of such specific provision in the central excise act as well as in customs act claim of secured creditor will prevail over crowns debts. -- securities & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]. section 13: possession of property taken by bank under the act - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the act, it would be a secured creditor and would.....1. after, the decree for partition was passed on the 15th september, the property of the plaintiff was sold in execution of a decree for a debt binding on the plaintiff and the defendant. the decree debt was paid by the plaintiff on the 11th november 1903 and the sale was set aside. the right to contribution arose on that date. there is, therefore, no bar by the proceedings in the partition suit. we dismiss the appeal with costs.2. as to the memorandum of objections we hold that the binding nature of the debt is not res judicata. we, therefore, dismiss that also with costs.
Judgment:

1. After, the decree for partition was passed on the 15th September, the property of the plaintiff was sold in execution of a decree for a debt binding on the plaintiff and the defendant. The decree debt was paid by the plaintiff on the 11th November 1903 and the sale was set aside. The right to contribution arose on that date. There is, therefore, no bar by the proceedings in the partition suit. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

2. As to the memorandum of objections we hold that the binding nature of the debt is not res judicata. We, therefore, dismiss that also with costs.


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