Skip to content


Srinivasa Chetti Vs. Chenna Chetti (Dead) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.251
AppellantSrinivasa Chetti
RespondentChenna Chetti (Dead) and ors.
Cases ReferredBai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangaldas Ind. Dec.
Excerpt:
.....of - misconduct of party. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section 19 of recovery of debts due to bank is and financial institutions act, it would be clear..........court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. the petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. the district judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.2. it is now contended that it is not the petitioner's duty to find another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. this ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The petitioner stood surety in a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the respondent who undertook to re-pay to a minor his share of an estate in case the Court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. The petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. The District Judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.

2. It is now contended that it is not the petitioner's duty to find another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. This ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. It is possible that he may have some remedy against the respondent if he can prove the misconduct alleged, but he has contracted both with the respondent, and with the Court that he will carry out a certain promise, namely, to pay Rs. 4,000 if default is committed by the respondent. It is not for him to say that he will or will not discharge this obligation and, therefore, I think that the District Judge was right in dismissing his application. I may refer in Ibis connection to a case, reported in Bai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangaldas Ind. Dec. 166 which supports my view.


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