Skip to content


Muna Pona Muthupalani Chetty Vs. Suppiah Ambalam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad250
AppellantMuna Pona Muthupalani Chetty
RespondentSuppiah Ambalam and ors.
Cases ReferredSeshamma v. Debt Conciliation Board
Excerpt:
- .....until that application had been dismissed. the sale proceedings were once adjourned but on the adjourned date it transpired that the application made to the board was defective in material particulars. the board, instead of following the mandatory provisions of section 7 of the act, chose to return the application for amendment. it was in the interval between this return and its re-presentation that the sale was held and the learned district munsif took the view that the order directing the return of the application for amendment was equivalent to an order of rejection under section 7 of the act. it is possible also to take another view, namely, that because the application did not contain the statutory particulars under section 6 of the act, it was not an application within the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Byers, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the executing Court to sell his property in execution of the decree against him, his objection being that he had already made an application for the settlement of his debts under Section 1, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, and, therefore, under Section 25 of the Act the executing Court was powerless to proceed further until that application had been dismissed. The sale proceedings were once adjourned but on the adjourned date it transpired that the application made to the Board was defective in material particulars. The Board, instead of following the mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Act, chose to return the application for amendment. It was in the interval between this return and its re-presentation that the sale was held and the learned District Munsif took the view that the order directing the return of the application for amendment was equivalent to an order of rejection under Section 7 of the Act. It is possible also to take another view, namely, that because the application did not contain the statutory particulars under Section 6 of the Act, it was not an application within the meaning of S. & read with Sections 5 and 6 of the Act and consequently gave the debtor no protection under Section 25. The learned advocate for the decree-holder relies on the decision in Seshamma v. Debt Conciliation Board, Nandyal A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 405 in which the Chief Justice and Kuppuswami Ayyar J. held that where a defective application was returned for the rectification of certain defects and subsequently re-presented, the period of one year under Section 17 of the Act runs not from the date of its original presentation but from the date when it was re-presented in its correct form. This means that an application must be deemed to have been made when it is made in accordance with the statutory requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6. In this view of the matter it follows that the petitioner's application was not an application within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, he was not entitled to a stay of proceedings under Section 25. There was no irregularity in the sale and this petition is ordered to be dismissed.


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