Ananda Krishnan didn't appear before it soon, a day after former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran was discharged in a corruption case tied to the company. One must subject himself to the process of law," a bench of Chief Justice J. The bench, also comprising Justices N.
Try out our Premium Member services: Free for one month and pay only if you like it. The question raised by this appeal is whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the other person interested in the bond.
It is found that the party who received payment was not the agent in that behalf of the plaintiff.
On the other hand, it is not suggested that there was any fraud on the part of the defendants who made the payment. The appellants' vakil in support of his contention, that the payment to one joint creditor was a valid discharge of the debt as against the other, referred to Section 38 of the Contract Act and to the English ease of Wallace v.
In the first part of the Section it is provided that, where an offer of performance has been made and not accepted, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance. It follows that, when a legal tender has been made to one of two joint promisees and refused by him, the promisor is discharged from liability in respect of his promise.
It would be difficult to reconcile with this proposition the view adopted by the Subordinate Judge, viz. But it is argued on the first respondent's behalf that Section 45 of the Act, by declaring the right of the several joint promisees to performance, makes it incumbent on the debtor to satisfy them all before obtaining a complete discharge.
It is also suggested that the fact of the creditor being a mortgagee makes a material difference. With regard to Section 45we cannot see that the declaration that the several joint promisees are entitled to performance is otherwise than consistent with English law or that, unless it.
To put that construction on the Section would amount to saying that, where a contract is made in favour of more than one person, they must be taken to be severally entitled under it, for they cannot be jointly and severally entitled.
There is no reason whatever to suppose that this was intended by the Legislature. A somewhat similar contention was raised in Hemendro Coomar Mulliek v.
Rajendro lall Moonshee I. The point there decided on the authority of King v. The Court refused to accede to the contention that, since the passing of the Contract Actthe rule in King v.
Taking together Sections 4243 and 45we find that the Legislature has declared against the common law rule of survivorship as well in the case of joint creditors as in that of joint debtors.
Further, in Section 44the Act has abolished the rule of English law according to which the release of one joint debtor operates to release bis co-debtors.
For the proposition that the Legislature intended to go beyond this and refuse recognition altogether to rights or liabilities in solidum, we do not think that there is any foundation.
We think that effect must be given to the plain language used in Section 38 and that the question above stated must be answered in.
So construed the Section is consistent with Sectionwhich lays down the rule that a bailee who has taken goods from several joint owners may deliver them hack to one without the consent of all. It is also consistent with the common Jaw case of Wallace v. We refer to Steeds v. In both the cases one of the joint creditors who joined in the action had been satisfied by payment or otherwise.
The cases cited in the judgment in Steeds v.A young unemployed man needs to have a bike for his job as a collection agent at a chit fund office. His bike gets stolen only to be seen riding by another guy who claims to have bought it from black market.
Watch Awesome Teen Creampie Compilation In HD - free porn video on MecVideos. (sic) Gurulingaswamy vs. Shri Balusu Rama-Lakshmamma and Anr. Abboy Chetti vs. Ramachandra Rau and Ors.
Abbu vs. Kuppammal: ramana goundan ilr () m 7 mlj and annapurnamma v. akkayya () ilr 36 m 21 mlj (fb) he has set up a case of fraud it is next urged by the appellants that the suit is barred by limitation.
mr. rama rao who appears for the appellants contends that ex. 1 does not contain an. Barber Maran And Anr. vs Ramana Goundan And Anr. on 10 October, Equivalent citations: () ILR 20 Mad Bench: A J Collins, Shephard. JUDGMENT 1. The question raised by this appeal is whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an .
Reported in: AIRBom6; ()58BOMLR; ILRBom nature of mortgage, respondent 1 as one of the mortgagors has the right to redeem the mortgage in its entirety. that is clear from the terms of section 91, transfer of property act which provides that ''any person who has any interest in, or charge upon the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same' has the.