Chennai Court January 1982 Judgments
K.R. Venkatrama Gounder and ors. Vs. Rangathai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ346
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. It is common ground that two items of properties had been directed to be sold in public auction by the lower Court and that an objection has been taken at the very initial instance itself that both the houses should not be subjected to public sale, because the proceeds of the sale of one of the houses could itself satisfy the requirements of the claim. When such is the position, so far as this revision petition is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Shyamalam, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, that Section 2 of the Partition Act (TV of 1893), which is applicable to the facts of the case, clearly enumerates that the lower Court ought to have applied its mind regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sale, maintaining its view regarding the beneficial aspect as far as the shareholders are concerned and in the instant case, the learned District Munsif, while ordering the petition under Order 26, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not adv...
Tag this Judgment!Rupani Brothers and anr. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group Iii, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC326(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1446 of 1979 is filed for prohibiting the respondent from continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 2nd January, 1979, issued by him, and Writ Petitioner No. 1594 of 1979 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated 26th August, 1978, of the respondent. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1446 of 1979, the petitioner has claimed as follows : The petitioner-firm has been carrying on business in iron and steel for over twelve years, and right from the commencement it has been maintaining accounts in Gujarati language which has been accepted by authorities under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), as well as by the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On 30th July, 1977, the respondent examined the books of account and found that they have been maintained in Gujarati language using Gujarati numerals. He held that use of Gujarati language was in order, but use of Gujarati numerals viola...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Agatheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam by Its Heredi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ70
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal raises a substantial question of law as to whether the filing of an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the defendant amounts to a waiver of notice under Section 11 and whether the suit out of which the second appeal arises is maintainable in spite of there being no valid notice as contemplated under Section 11.2. The appellant-Devasthanam filed a suit, O.S. No. 1185 of 1974 on the file, of the City Civil Court, Madras for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property bearing R.S. No. 452129 in Nungambakkam measuring 2114 sq. ft. Its case as set out in the plaint was that the defendant became its tenant by a registered lease deed dated 4th December, 1965, for a period of five years on a monthly rental of Rs. 1, that the tenancy commenced from 4th December, 1965 and ended on 3rd November, 1970, and that after the expiry of the lease the tenant was holding over without surrender...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Muthiah Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad69; (1983)1MLJ167
1. The petitioner herein advanced a sum of Rs. 6500 on the mortgage of a house of respondents 4 and 5 under a document dated 5-3-1971. After the coming into force the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980, respondents 4 and 5, the mortgagors filed an application under Section 6 of the said Act, claiming a certificate of discharge from the Special Tahsildar, Debt Relief, Kumabakonam on the ground that they would come within the definition of debtor as defined in the Act, as their annual household income was less than Rs. 4800/-. The said application was resisted by the creditor, the petitioner herein on two grounds - viz., (1) that the household income of respondents 4 and 5 is more than Rs.4,800/- and therefore they cannot claim the benefits of the Act, and (2) that the house property which is the subject matter of the mortgage, owned by respondents 4 and 5 was more than Rs. 30,000/- and therefore they cannot claim the benefits of the Act in view of proviso (vi) to Section 3 (d), which excludes ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Venkatanarasiah Vs. Vijayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad329
Ratnam, J.1. The second defendant in C. S. No. 141 of 1971 on the file of the Original Side of this Court is the petitioner in these applications. In that suit instituted by the first respondent in C. M. P. No. 12420 of 1981 and the sole respondent in C. M, P. 12427 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) she prayed for partition and separate possession of 1/28th share in the A and B Sch. properties and for partition and separate possession of half share in the C and D Schedule properties and for recovery of possession of E Schedule Stridhana and other movable properties from the petitioner in these applications or such of the defendants as may be found to be in possession of the Stridhana and other movable properties and also for declaration of her title to the F Schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereof from defendants 2, 11 to 13 in the suit. In addition, the relief of rendition of accounts by. defendants I to 7 in the suit in respect of the income re...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Vinisithurthan Chettiar Vs. the Governement of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad440
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order of the second respondent dated 29-6-1981 holding that the 4th respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 and passed an order of discharge in relation to the promissory note loan said to have been taken by the 4th respondent from the petitioner.2. The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed by the second respondent may be briefly stated. The 4th respondent herein had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- under a promissory note from the petitioner. Based on the promissory note the petitioner had filed a suit 0. S. No. 336 of 1969 and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the 4th respondent's property had been attached and brought to sale and his properties had been purchased in Court-auction by a third party. The sale proceeds obtained in the said sale of the 4th respondent's property were sufficient to fully discharge the decree debt due to the petitioner. All these hav...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramu Chettiar Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Debt Reliefs), Ariyalur an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad77
1. The petitioner herein had obtained a decree on 29-6-1978 for Rs. 31, 620/- against the third respondent in O. S. No. 345 of 1973 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. For executing that decree, he filed E. P. No 525 of 1979 in the said court and the said E. P. is said to be still pending. In the meanwhile, the third respondent filed an application before the first respondent claiming relief under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and for a certificate that the decree amount in O. S. No. 345 of 1973 Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, stands discharged. The said application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the question of discharge and that the matter should be agitated only before the Civil Court.2. The first respondent however, held that he had jurisdiction to go into the question of discharge and that the third respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act as he is a debtor as defined in the Act. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Nambikkai Mary Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad79
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioners herein wanted to mortgage their property for getting a loan of Rs. 14,000/-. They obtained an initial payment of Rs. 4,000/- from the first respondent. However, the mortgage transaction did not come through. The first respondent filed the suit in O. S. No. 699 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchy, for the recovery of the said Rs. 4,000 treating it as advance towards the mortgage loan which did not fructify. At that stage, the petitioners claimed the benefit under Act 13 of 1980, by filing an application before the Tahsildar for a certificate of discharge of the debt. The first respondent decree-holder stated that the debt sued upon in the suit is one of debts exempted under S. 12 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit under the Act. This contention was accepted by the Tahsildar who held that the debtors are not entitled to the benefits of the Act.The matter was taken in appeal by the petitioners and the appell...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramu Chettiar Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ418
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein had obtained a decree on 29th June, 1978 for Rs. 31,620 against the third respondent in O.S. No. 345 of 1973 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli. For executing that decree, he filed E.P. No. 525 of 1979 in the said Court and the said E.P. is said to be still pending. In the meanwhile the third respondent filed an application before the first respondent claiming relief under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 and for a certificate that the decree amount in O.S. No. 345 of 1973, Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli, stands discharged. The said application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the question of discharge and that the matter should be agitated only before the civil Court. The first respondent however, held that he has jurisdiction to go into the question of discharge and that the third respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act as he is a debtor as defined ...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Vinsithurthan Chettiar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ437
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 29th June, 1981, holding that the 4th respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 and passing an order of discharge in relation to the promissory note loan said to have been taken by the 4th respondent from the petitioner.2. The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed by the second respondent may be briefly stated. The 4tb respondent herein had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000 under a promissory note from the petitioner. Based on the promissory note the petitioner has filed a suit O.S. No. 336 of 1969 and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the 4th respondent's property had been attached and brought to sale and his properties had been purchased in Court-auction by a third party. The sale proceeds obtained in the said sale of the 4th respondent's property were sufficient to fully discharge the decree debt due to the petitioner. All ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »