Srinivasa Chetti Vs. Chenna Chetti (Dead) and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Chennai |
| Oct-14-1925 |
| Phillips, J. |
| 92Ind.Cas.251 |
| Srinivasa Chetti |
| Chenna Chetti (Dead) and ors. |
| Bai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangaldas Ind. Dec.
|
.....thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and financial institutions. .....another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. this ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. it is possible that he may have some remedy against the respondent if he can prove the misconduct alleged, but he has contracted both with the respondent, and with the court that he will carry out a certain promise, namely, to pay rs. 4,000 if default is committed by the respondent. it is not for him to say that he will or will not discharge this obligation and, therefore, i think that the district judge was right in dismissing his application. i may refer in ibis connection to a case, reported in bai somi v. chokshi ishvardas mangaldas ind. dec. 166 which supports my view.
Phillips, J.
1. The petitioner stood surety in a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the respondent who undertook to re-pay to a minor his share of an estate in case the Court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. The petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. The District Judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.
2. It is now contended that it is not the petitioner's duty to find another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. This ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. It is possible that he may have some remedy against the respondent if he can prove the misconduct alleged, but he has contracted both with the respondent, and with the Court that he will carry out a certain promise, namely, to pay Rs. 4,000 if default is committed by the respondent. It is not for him to say that he will or will not discharge this obligation and, therefore, I think that the District Judge was right in dismissing his application. I may refer in Ibis connection to a case, reported in Bai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangaldas Ind. Dec. 166 which supports my view.