Chennai Court December 1976 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.
Akilandam Ammal Vs. Indrani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad145
1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder. He filed the suit, O. S. No. 153 of 1969 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,591.50 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the first defendant's husband and the father of the other defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000 payable with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, but the claim being restricted to six per cent. per annum. The suit was filed on 11th April, 1969 and a decree was obtained on 16th February, 1970. Interest on the principal amount was paid on various dates. According to the plaintiff three amounts were paid towards his loan: a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 13th April, 1970; a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 21st November, 1970; and a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 24th July, 1971; in all a sum of Rs. 6,000. The only question is how this amount should be appropriated. According to the plaintiff the interest amounts to Rs. 2,222-83 and, therefore, giving credit to the sum of Rs. 6,000 the amount outstan...
Akilandam Ammal Vs. Indrani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1976
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ392
Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder. He filed the suit, O. S. No. 153 of 1969 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,591.50 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the first defendant's husband and the father of the other defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000 payable with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, but the claim being restricted to six per cent. per annum. The suit was filed on 11th April, 1969 and a decree was obtained on 16th February, 1970. Interest on the principal amount was paid on various dates. According to the plaintiff three amounts were paid towards his loan: a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 13th April, 1970; a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 21st November, 1970; and a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 24th July, 1971; in all a sum of Rs. 6,000. The only question is how this amount should be appropriated. According to the plaintiff the interest amounts to Rs. 2,222-83 and, therefore, giving credit to the sum of Rs. 6,000 the ...
Leelavathy Vs. Sundar Athmaseelan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad409
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the lower court refusing to award interim maintenance claimed by the appellant at the rate of Rs. 200 per month.2. The appellant and the respondent were married on 11-7-1973. The respondent herein filed a suit O. S. No. 1 of 1975 seeking divorce under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869, on 9-4-1975, on the ground that the appellant had committed adultery with the second defendant in the suit. The appellant resisted the said suit on the ground that she had not committed adultery with the second defendant or any one else, but on the other hand, the plaintiff had driven her out and deserted her 2 or 3 months after the marriage. After filing the written filed a petition under S. 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, for directing the plaintiff husband to pay her alimony at Rs. 200 per month and also the cost of defence in the suit.3. In the said petition she has alleged that as she has been deserted by her husband (plaintiff), that she is livi...
S. Karuppa Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Deputy Comme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ55
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. A very peculiar situation has arisen in this case. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani, filed a suit obviously under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for the cancellation of a sale deed executed by the first defendant who was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and who was in default in payment of such tax payable by him. The case of the plaintiff-State was that the said sale was in fraud of the creditors as it was in favour of his own, wife who was the second defendant in the action. At the time when the suit was filed, no permission was sought nor does it appear on record that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff on behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors. The suit was filed in the year 1971. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died and it is common ground that the legal representatives of the second defendant have not been brought on record and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›