Chennai Court November 1933 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.K. Thaj Mahomed Saib Vs. T. Balaji Singh, Minor by Guardian Rao Sahe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad173; (1934)66MLJ207
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition against the order of the Full Bench of the Madras Small Cause Court in an application filed by a decree-holder for attachment of the Provident Fund amount which stood to the credit of the deceased judgment-debtor (who was employed under Government as an Assistant Superintendent of Police) at the time of his decease, and which was paid to his minor son as a dependant under Section 4(1) of the Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925). The question for consideration is, whether the amount to be paid over to the son of the deceased judgment-debtor is liable to be attached as the assets of the deceased in the hands of his son. The answer depends upon a proper construction of the wording of Section 3(2) of the Act, having due regard to the scheme of the Act also. The relevant portion of that clause in Section 3 is:Any sum standing to the credit of any subscriber to, or depositor in, any such Fund at the time of his decease and payable under th...
Pl. Rm. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar Vs. A. Ct. N. Nagappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad186; (1934)66MLJ248
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff in this case applied for execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor as well as against the latter's surety. Execution was granted against the surety and against this order the surety appeals.2. In the Lower Court there was a ground taken that the decree had been satisfied. This was found against and though it has been raised in the memorandum of appeal, it was given up in argument before us.3. The circumstances in which the security bond came to be taken are as follows. The decree-holder put in E. P. No. 252 of 1931, dated the 4th December, 1931, to arrest the judgment-debtor. Notice was sent and finally the judgment-debtor was arrested on the 18th January, 1932. He prayed for one week's time for the purpose of settling the decree with the plaintiff and for making arrangements for paying the amount. The order of the Court on this, dated the 25th January, 1932, was ' 3 days time more allowed; to be produced on the 28th January '. On that date ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›