Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Thayyanayaki Achi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 30, 1914
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/815264

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Receiver, appointment of - Appointment of party--Jurisdiction--Small estate. -

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Thayyanayaki Achi

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915Mad336(2); 25Ind.Cas.602

Excerpt

receiver, appointment of - appointment of party--jurisdiction--small estate. - oldfield, j.1. it is, no doubt, a general rule that one party should not be appointed a receiver without the other's consent. but departure from that rule may be justified by the special circumstances of the case. such special circumstances have, in my opinion, been shown by the lower court to exist; and i may also refer to the fact that the estate is comparatively small and can ill-afford the, cost of a paid receiver. appellant contends that the respectable person nominated by her should be appointed without payment. i am not, however, prepared to hold that the lower court used its discretion wrongly in refusing his services, since the court's control over an honorary receiver must always be small.2. it is further contended that no appointment is necessary because it will not be advantageous to call in some of the debts in question, which represent profitable investments and should not be terminated. it will be open to appellant to move the lower court with reference to these items to direct the receiver not to sue for them at once, if postponement is advantageous to the estate. the fact, if it be one, that there are such items, is not material with reference to the general question whether a receiver to protect the estate should be appointed.3. this appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Oldfield, J.

1. It is, no doubt, a general rule that one party should not be appointed a Receiver without the other's consent. But departure from that rule may be justified by the special circumstances of the case. Such special circumstances have, in my opinion, been shown by the lower Court to exist; and I may also refer to the fact that the estate is comparatively small and can ill-afford the, cost of a paid Receiver. Appellant contends that the respectable person nominated by her should be appointed without payment. I am not, however, prepared to hold that the lower Court used its discretion wrongly in refusing his services, since the Court's control over an honorary Receiver must always be small.

2. It is further contended that no appointment is necessary because it will not be advantageous to call in some of the debts in question, which represent profitable investments and should not be terminated. It will be open to appellant to move the lower Court with reference to these items to direct the Receiver not to sue for them at once, if postponement is advantageous to the estate. The fact, if it be one, that there are such items, is not material with reference to the general question whether a Receiver to protect the estate should be appointed.

3. This appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial