LexS.MT. KAMALA DEVI versus SETH TAKHATMAL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
lii2
~ · '
..
"0 -L·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
S.MT. KAMALA DEVI
'(,'.
SETH TAKHAT:.IAL AND A~OTHER
(K. SUBBA RAO, ICHrnt;BAll DAYAL anJ
.J. R. :.11wHOLKAR .J.J.)
,)'urr:ly }~rnvl-C'nn'!-lructlnn of-Corviitions for RnforcemP-nt
-If Ju((t!lr:tl-[Ji'lpluccrl 1{1./,fur ·-Appiicr1tion for rtt[j11_qfn1r11t. of
dcbl-'l-[li::tu1n
for uxvit of fr:rr1!1Jrit'l[ j11risdictio11---Appr.1Jl-
()i1:li (}ourL if 1r111.i;t sf11y
r:.1:< r1111:rui prnrr."d;·ngs-{:/11lP of Ci1:il
J»roc~rl11re. l.'iOS (.
1!r.t V of /!lfJ\), A. 145--!Ji.'lpiar.ul J;r.r.<uJ11s
(/ichts Adj1o'lme11t) Act, ]!J.)/ (LXX of JYcj/), "'·ii, 15.
·r filed a
suit against .\1 and oUtaincd a:1 t.>rder for
attarfnnr.nt b<":forc judg1ncr.r of certain bills due for p.1yrnent
to
~L 1'hc biils \\'Crc rclc.l'iCJ fro:n attacluncnt upon
~f
fun,ishing surctit~s i11clu<lin~ tilt: app~llcuH. Cnder the surety
bund the appellant bound htT . ..;cJr u1.u :Vf "shall pro<L1ce and
plal:c at the <lispos:tl of the couo t, u·hen rt:7uitrtl'·, th~ bilis or
the Yaluc of the sa111e and 1:it1 d"-fault of bis so doingi 1 tu p;\y
a s11111 r;f Rs 12,000 tu the <:ourt.
After the p.\ssing of the
decree, ·r, v.•ithout
takin~ •u1y steps agaiust \{, applied for
excri:~ion of the decree by
e~1for<.:cn1cnt of the s11rcty bonds.
The sureties tiled ''hje<:tiuns.
111
1lll~ r11ca11ti!n~, ~f appli~d to
the })ehra<lun ·rribunal uudcr ~ . .5 of t!1e J)ispl<tced Persons
(l)cbt :\<lj11st111cnt) Act: 195 I 1 for adjtl'Hn1ent of l:is debts and
the appcll<1.nt applir.d. H) the executing Court under s. 15 of the
Act for staying the procccdiiu;s.
The
C~><trt rcf~1sc..J t1> stay
J1olding that the l)chradnn ·rriG1111.il had no jurisdiction to
entertain the application ,u1J
reje<:tt~d the objrction-; to the
enfo;ccn1e11t of the surety bonds.
Subsequently, r:1c Tribunal
.-.!so held that it had no rerritorLil.iurislJiction to c1lttrtain the
applicnion a11d returnr.d the s;i1ne fur presentation to the pro·
per ·rrib11na 1.
~{
p··~fcrrcJ ;in appeal ag;iinst
thi<:
()rdr.r.
'fhe appr.lla11t conte11deJ that the executing Cnul't w,t~ b'.)\l!ld
to st;1y thr. execution proccc<li111_~s ;l.nd th<lt the surt'lY bond was
111,t l"t1forceilhlc as ihr: co:iclitinns 11cc<"ssl1)' tor its enfqrr:cnlf~llt
h:1<l not 1Jee11 fulfilled.
/Jeld, that the cxecutin~ C:ourt \\'as right iri rr·fu-;in~ t0
stav the proceedings.
L·nder 5. 13 of the .~ct, :di procr:e<ling!\
p~~~dio~ in a C:i\:il C~urt li:l\"C to be st;~y.e~ provided tv.·o c~n.
d1t1uns are ~atlsh<'<l, 1. c. fi) tl'at the l fl!Jt111al l:cf11rc \\"illc:t1
the application under s. 5 i'i filed has territorial _jllrisdic:tiou tr)
-
..
-
28.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
153
entertain it and (ii) that the proceedings are in respect
of a debt owed by the dfaplaced person. The Tribunal had
returned the application for want of territorial jurisdiction
and •he mere filing- of the appeal did not suspend the order
of the Tribunal. The effect was that there was no application
under s. 5 pending.
Jascurn Bo1:d v. Pirthichand Lal, (1918) L. R. 46 I. A.
52, referred Iv.
Held, further, that the surety bond was not enforceable.
A surety bond had to be strictly c0nstrued; it was permissible
to
look at t]\e surrounding circumstances only when the
language used was ambigucus.
In the present case the langu-
age was clear. A strict construction of the bond led to the
only conclusion that a demand by the Court to M to produce
the bills or their value and a default made by him were
necessary conditions for th.: enforcement of the bond against
the surety. These conditions were not fulfilled.
Raghunandan v. Kirtyanand
A. I. R. 1932 P. C. 131,
The State of Bihar v. M. Homi. [1955] 2 S. C.R. 78 and The
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Syeed, (1957] S.C.R. 770,
referred to.
C1vrL APPELI,ATE JumsDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 72 of 1961.
'Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated
March 12, l!J57, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent No. 212 of
195().
G. G. Mathur, for the appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solici:tor-General of
Inrlia and S 8. Shukla, for respondent No. 1.
1963. February 21.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SURRA RAO .J .-This appeal by special leave
raises, inter alin, the question of construction of the
terms of a surety bond.
The
August 26,
materi~l
facts are
DS
J!J47, Seth Takhatmal,
follows : On
respondent 1,
1963
'Kamala Dev
v
Takhllm•Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.