Skip to content


In Re: Achath Sankaran Nair - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1143(2); 29Ind.Cas.586a
AppellantIn Re: Achath Sankaran Nair
Cases ReferredKara Nayar v. Ramappa
Excerpt:
.....in court--condition requiring return of documents to which mortgagor not entitled, effect of--tender conditional, whether valid. - 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.....1. the case in kara nayar v. ramappa 17 m.p 267 merely decided that a request for return (of those title-deeds which the mortgagee was bound to return before he takes out the money from court) accompanying a tender made under section 83 of act iv of 1882, was not a condition vitiating the tender.2. in the present case, the appellant insisted on a return of certain title-deeds which he was not entitled to a return of, as a condition of the tender and 'refused to pay the money until he had recovered the documents and possession of the property' (paragraph 3 of the district judge's judgment). section 55 of the transfer of property act does not apply, as rightly decided by the district judge.3. i dismiss the second appeal.
Judgment:

1. The case in Kara Nayar v. Ramappa 17 M.P 267 merely decided that a request for return (of those title-deeds which the mortgagee was bound to return before he takes out the money from Court) accompanying a tender made under Section 83 of Act IV of 1882, was not a condition vitiating the tender.

2. In the present case, the appellant insisted on a return of certain title-deeds which he was not entitled to a return of, as a condition of the tender and 'refused to pay the money until he had recovered the documents and possession of the property' (paragraph 3 of the District Judge's judgment). Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply, as rightly decided by the District Judge.

3. I dismiss the second appeal.


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