Mohamed Ibrahim and anr. Vs. Abdul Azeez, Represented by His Power Agent, M. Mohamed Jaffar

Mohamed Ibrahim and anr. vs Abdul Azeez, Represented by His Power Agent, M. Mohamed Jaffar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 20, 1979

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/822598

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/822598
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Jun 20, 1979
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

- 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 ...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohamed Ibrahim and anr.

Respondent

Abdul Azeez, Represented by His Power Agent, M. Mohamed Jaffar

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Raghwaveera Sons v. Mrs. Padmavathi
Reported In: (1979)2MLJ394

Excerpt

.....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 action taken already is in accordance with the provisions of the securitisation act and the rules made 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. .....that suit was an under-chapter suit and has been filed by the respondent on the foot that he had obtained an assignment of the suit promissory note from the original promisee.2. the petitioners herein filed an application under order 37, rule 2, civil procedure code, praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit. the subordinate judge declined to grant unconditional leave and granted them conditional leave by calling upon the petitioners to deposit one-half of the suit amount before entering defence. 'it is to challenge the correctness of that order the petitioners have come forward with this revision.3. mr. sridevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the subordinate judge has found that there is a triable issue in the suit and having rendered such a finding, the learned judge ought not to have imposed conditions on the petitioners.. in support of this contention, he relies upon the decisions in ms. baba industries v. mehta traders : air1978 mad146 . and raghwaveera sons v. mrs. padmavathi : air1978 mad81 . what has been held in both those cases is that if the court is satisfied that the defence of the defendant is acceptable though prima facie or that the defence raises a triable issue or that the contentions, raised by the defendant can only be determined after due trial of the case, then in, such circumstances, the court ought not to impose & condition in the matter of the payment of the plaint amount sought for by the plaintiff into court as security before the grant of such leave.4. mr. ananthakrishnan nair, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this case, the court below has not found the existence of any triable issue in favour of the petitioners as contended by them. he points out that the primary contention put forward by the petitioners in the application was that the suit should have been filed within six months from the date of the cause of action and that not having been done, the suit was not.....

Full Judgment

S. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision has been preferred by the defendants in O.S. No. 82 of 1975 on the file of the Courts of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. That suit was an under-chapter suit and has been filed by the respondent on the foot that he had obtained an assignment of the suit promissory note from the original promisee.

2. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order 37, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit. The Subordinate Judge declined to grant unconditional leave and granted them conditional leave by calling upon the petitioners to deposit one-half of the suit amount before entering defence. 'It is to challenge the correctness of that order the petitioners have come forward with this revision.

3. Mr. Sridevan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the Subordinate Judge has found that there is a triable issue in the suit and having rendered such a finding, the learned Judge ought not to have imposed conditions on the petitioners.. In support of this contention, he relies upon the decisions in Ms. Baba Industries v. Mehta Traders : AIR1978 Mad146 . and Raghwaveera Sons v. Mrs. Padmavathi : AIR1978 Mad81 . What has been held in both those cases is that if the Court is satisfied that the defence of the defendant is acceptable though prima facie or that the defence raises a triable issue or that the contentions, raised by the defendant can only be determined after due trial of the case, then in, such circumstances, the Court ought not to impose & condition in the matter of the payment of the plaint amount sought for by the plaintiff into Court as security before the grant of such leave.

4. Mr. Ananthakrishnan Nair, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in this case, the Court below has not found the existence of any triable issue in favour of the petitioners as contended by them. He points out that the primary contention put forward by the petitioners in the application was that the suit should have been filed within six months from the date of the cause of action and that not having been done, the suit was not maintainable. This contention has been repelled by the Subordinate Judge for there was no trace of material to even remotely sustain this plea. The other ground put forward by the petitioners was that they are agriculturists and, therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Ordinance VIII of 1975. It is only with reference to this plea, the Subordinate Judge has observed that since the plaintiff refutes the contention of the petitioners that they are agriculturists, the question of determining the status of the petitioners as agriculturists will have to wait the trial of the suit, but that will not entitle the petitioners to ask for unconditional leave to defend the suit. Inasmuch as the petitieners had not disputed or denied the execution of the promissory note, the Subordinate Judge has directed the petitioners to deposit one-half of the suit claim before entering defence in the suit.

5. On a consideration of the matter, the contention of the petitioners that the Subordinate Judge has found that their claim raised a triable issue for consideration in the suit cannot be sustained. The plea regarding the status of the petitioners as agriculturists will entitle them only to certain benefits in the matter of scaling down of interest etc. It will not impinge upon their liability to pay the amount claimed under the suit promissory note, especially when the petitioners have not denied their liability under the promissory note. Such being the case, it is futile for the petitioners to say that they have raised a triable issue in the case and in view of the acceptance of their stand by the Court below, they should not have been called upon to deposit one-half of the suit amount as a condition precedent. In that view of the matter, the order of the Court below can well be sustained. The revision will, therefore, stand dismissed. No costs.

6. The petitioners are given two months' time from today to deposit the amount directed by the lower Court to be deposited.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1979 Same Parties Mohamed Ibrahim and anr. vs Abdul Azeez, Represented by His P... Same Subject Civil

Civil