Skip to content

G.A. Sundara Aiyar Vs. Arumugham Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in(1923)44MLJ361
AppellantG.A. Sundara Aiyar
RespondentArumugham Pillai and ors.
Cases ReferredMa Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung I.L.R.
.....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 have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of..........v. mating mo hnaung i.l.r. (1921) c 832. their lordships' language has to be taken with the facts of the case they were dealing with. the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with.....

Krishnan, J.

1. I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due, based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Dug-gempudi Nagamma v. Peda Venkatareddi (1920) 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their Lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung I.L.R. (1921) C 832. Their Lordships' language has to be taken with the facts of the case they were dealing with. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

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