K. GOPALAN BEING MINOR BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, MRS. JAGADAMBAL Vs. TRAVANCORE NATIONAL AND QUILON BANK LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) BY ITS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE agree with Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., on both the points taken before him, which were also taken before us. The order of Venkataramana Rao, J., in Application No. 1935 of 1941 in O.P. No. 158 of 1938 did not purport to supersede the three decrees under which the appellant was liable. It only gave leave to the Official Liquidators to accept in full discharge a sum of Rs. 2,500 payable in monthly instalments, and in default, they were to be paid a sum of Rs. 2,500, with interest at six per cent from date of default. We do not agree with the appellant that the only remedy which the respondent had was to execute this order as if it had superseded the decrees. The ruling in Mahiganj Loan Office Ltd. v. Biharee Lal Chaki, I.L.R. (1937) 1 Cal. 781, has no application because in that case there was a scheme under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act sanctioned by Court and it was held the the scheme superseded the decree which became incapable of execution.

(2.) THE execution application filed prior to the present application, viz, E.P. No. 42 of 1943 cannot be said to be an application not in accordance with law. The ground on which it is contended that it was not in accordance with law is that instead of claiming a sum of Rs. 2,500 fixed in the order of Venkataramana Rao, J., the entire amount due under the decree in O.S. No. 325 of 1936 in which the petition was filed was sought to be recovered. It would then be a case where an amount in excess of what was rightly due was claimed. On this ground, it cannot be said that the application was not in accordance with law. Vide Subramanian Chettiar v. : AIR1941Mad528 .

(3.) THIS appeal is dismissed with costs.