Q. What are the equivalent citations for In Re. Ellappa Chettiar vs ?

The equivalence citation are(1939) 2 MLJ 727 ; 1939 MWN 1169 ; AIR 1940 MAD 31 ; LQ/MadHC/1939/326 ;

In Re. Ellappa Chettiar Vs. On 06 October, 1939

In Re. Ellappa Chettiar
v.

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Civil Revision Petition No. 273 Of 1939 | 06-10-1939

Stodart, J.

1. The District Munsif is clearly right.

2. The first application to the Board though nominally filed by the fourth defendant was clearly adopted by all the defendants. For they applied for and got stay of execution from the District Munsif under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act on the strength of that application.

3. It is also argued that having made another application to the Board, this time through the second defendant, the judgment-debtors are again entitled to stay.

4. To admit such a proposition would lead to absurd results. In the Debt Conciliation Act there is nothing to prevent a debtor filing one application after another and under Section 25 of the Act he can obtain stay of a suit or other proceedings so long as an application is pending before the Board. When he files an application before the Board a little time must elapse before it is dismissed. In that time under Section 25 he can obtain stay of proceedings in suits and other proceedings and so on indefinitely without limit of time, and obviously without any great expense.

5. In my opinion this is not the intention of the law. A judgment-debtor is not entitled to obtain stay under Section 25 of any individual suit or proceedings more than once. Petition is dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Petitioner Messrs. K.R. Krishnaswami Ayyar, P.S. Ramachandran, For the Respondent ---------

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE STODART

Eq Citation

(1939) 2 MLJ 727

1939 MWN 1169

AIR 1940 MAD 31

LQ/MadHC/1939/326

HeadNote

Debt Conciliation Act, 1934 — Ss. 25 and 2 — Stay of execution under S. 25 — Limitation on — Judgment-debtor not entitled to obtain stay under S. 25 of any individual suit or proceedings more than once — If admitted, would lead to absurd results — Judgment-debtor can obtain stay of a suit or other proceedings so long as an application is pending before the Board — When he files an application before the Board a little time must elapse before it is dismissed — In that time under S. 25 he can obtain stay of proceedings in suits and other proceedings and so on indefinitely without limit of time, and obviously without any great expense — Held, this is not the intention of the law