Skip to content


Annavarapu Nancharamma and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.231
AppellantAnnavarapu Nancharamma and anr.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.
Excerpt:
hypothecation - instalments--'due,' meaning of--failure of instalment--right to claim whole debt. - 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..........whole debt shall become due. when default is committed, the creditor is entitled to sell the property and apply the proceeds of the sale to the balance of the debt due. we are of opinion that the word 'due' in the context means payable. the whole debt was not due in this case at the same time. this is made clear by the next provision, that, if the sale does not realize what is due to the creditor, the debtor's other properties might be proceeded against for the balance then due. we must, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the decree of the lower-court by dismissing the suit so far as it relates to the last instalment with proportionate costs thereon both here and' in the lower court. the plaintiff will have his costs in the lower court on the remainder of the claim. the appellant.....
Judgment:

1. The appeal relates only to one instalment of the debt due. The appellant's Vakil says it may be taken to mean the last or 8th instalment. On the construction of the document A, we are of opinion that the appellant's contention is well founded. There is no provision in the document that, in default of payment of any of the instalments, the whole debt shall become due. When default is committed, the creditor is entitled to sell the property and apply the proceeds of the sale to the balance of the debt due. We are of opinion that the word 'due' in the context means payable. The whole debt was not due in this case at the same time. This is made clear by the next provision, that, if the sale does not realize what is due to the creditor, the debtor's other properties might be proceeded against for the balance then due. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the decree of the lower-Court by dismissing the suit so far as it relates to the last instalment with proportionate costs thereon both here and' in the lower Court. The plaintiff will have his costs in the lower Court on the remainder of the claim. The appellant will not have any costs in this Court on the portion of the appeal relating to costs.


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