Skip to content


T.V.R. Indra Talavar Vs. R. Narasimha Rau - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1021; 29Ind.Cas.670a
AppellantT.V.R. Indra Talavar
RespondentR. Narasimha Rau
Excerpt:
.....13(4)--sections 17(4), 13(4) ; [a.p. shan c.j.,f.m.ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] appeal right of bank held, the right of the bank is not automatically suspended upon filing of an appeal by borrower under section 17 of the securitisation act and the bank as secured creditor can proceed to auction secured asset where no stay is granted by the tribunal. there is nothing in section 17 of the securitisation act which would indicate that the legislature intended that there would be automatic stay of recovery proceedings by bank under section 13(4) on filing an appeal by borrower under section 17. use of the expressions if and then under section 17 would not mean that the bank can take one or more measures laid down under section 13(4) only if the tribunal declares that the..........accused was charged with an offence punishable under section 430, indian penal code. the sessions judge dealt with his appeal against his conviction under that section by referring to the reasons given in the judgment in a connected case in which his conviction was upheld on a charge of an offence punishable under section 379. in the latter, accused was alleged to have stolen stone from the bed of a tank, and the ownership of the tank and the bona fides of his claim to it were important. but they could not be decided in this case, iu which accused's intention to cause wrongful loss was the essential matter to be considered. the accused's case in fact was that he cut the tank inmil in order to build a new sluice there, the existing sluice being out of order, and this would be an offence.....
Judgment:

Oldfield, J.

1. The accused was charged with an offence punishable under Section 430, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge dealt with his appeal against his conviction under that section by referring to the reasons given in the judgment in a connected case in which his conviction was upheld on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 379. In the latter, accused was alleged to have stolen stone from the bed of a tank, and the ownership of the tank and the bona fides of his claim to it were important. But they could not be decided in this case, iu which accused's intention to cause wrongful loss was the essential matter to be considered. The accused's case in fact was that he cut the tank Inmil in order to build a new sluice there, the existing sluice being out of order, and this would be an offence punishable under Section 430, only if the intention specified in Section 425 as well as the other roquisities of the former section were established. The learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with this aspect of the case. His decision is set aside and he is directed to re-hear the appeal in the light of the foregoing.


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