Mahadeva Vs. Kuppusami

Mahadeva vs Kuppusami

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 11, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796479

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/796479
Court: Chennai
Judge: Parker and ;Subramanya Ayyar, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1892
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code, Section 356 - Insolvency proceedings--Receiver, commission of how computed. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahadeva

Respondent

Kuppusami

Legal References

Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad233

Excerpt

civil procedure code, section 356 - insolvency proceedings--receiver, commission of how computed. - 1. we are of opinion that the receiver is entitled to remuneration at the rate fixed by the late subordinate judge, but for the amount of that fee, he is only entiled to a lien to the extent of 5 per cent, upon the sum remaining as net assets after the charges specified in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of section 356 have been paid. the question whether the opposing creditor's claim is a debt secured by mortgage is not before us. see ex parte browne in re maltby l.r. 16 ch. d. 497

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the receiver is entitled to remuneration at the rate fixed by the late Subordinate Judge, but for the amount of that fee, he is only entiled to a lien to the extent of 5 per cent, upon the sum remaining as net assets after the charges specified in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 356 have been paid. The question whether the opposing creditor's claim is a debt secured by mortgage is not before us. See ex parte Browne in re Maltby L.R. 16 Ch. D. 497

Same Parties Mahadeva vs Kuppusami Same Subject Civil Same Judge Parker and ;Subramanya Ayyar, JJ.

Civil