Chennai Court March 1991 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.
Greaves Cotton and Company Vs. J. Jamal Mohammed Abdulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ236
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is the decree-holder and in execution proceedings the appellant wanted to proceed against properties standing in the name of the respondent, but advancing a case that the real owner of the properties is the judgment-debtor Jamal Mohideen Papa, who is none else than the father of the respondent. In substance, the appellant wanted to say that the respondent is only a benamidar for his father Jamal Mohideen Papa, the judgment-debtor. The respondent preferred a claim regarding the properties. The first court dismissed the claim petition, holding that the respondent is only a benamidar for the judgment-debtor and that the real owner is only the judgment-debtor. The order of the first court is dated 5.8.1983. The matter was taken to this Court byway of an appeal C.M.A. No. 6l0 of 1983. While the said appeal was pending, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 45 of 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act came into effect. O...
Karuppana Gounder Vs. Marakkal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad400; (1991)IMLJ333
ORDER1. The order of the Court below is clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 17-4-1976. The petitioner applied for copy of the judgment in C.A. 1609/86. Stamps were called for on 2-5-1986. As the petitioner did not furnish stamps, the copy application was struck off on 6-5-1986. The petitioner filed LA. 453 of 1986 for restoration of the copy application to file and that was ordered on 25-7-1986. Again stamps were called for on 7-8-1986. Stamps were deposited in time on 11-8-1986. Copies. were made ready on 22-8-196 and the appeal; was presented before the appellate Court on 22-9-1986.2. On objection taken by the Office, the learned District Judge upheld the same and held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The learned Judge has observed that the trial Court was no doubt entitled to restore the copy application and excuse the delay in depositing the copy stamps but that would not bind the appellate Court for the purpose of considering the question w...
Karuppana Gounder Vs. Marakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ333
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The order of the Court below is clearly erroneous. The Judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 17.4.1986. The petitioner applied for copy of the judgment in C.A. No. 1609 of 1986. Stamps were called for on 2.5.1986. As the petitioner did not furnish stamps, the copy application was struck off on 6.5.1986. The petitioner, filed I.A. No. 453 of 1986 for restoration of the copy application to file, and that was ordered on 25.7.1986. Again stamps were called for on 7.8.1986. Stamps were deposited in time on 11.8.1986. Copies were made ready on 22.8.1986 and the appeal was presented before the Appellate Court on 22.9.1986.2 On objection taken by the office the learned District Judge has upheld the same and held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The learned Judge has observed that the trial Court was no doubt entitled to restore the copy application and excuse the delay in depositing the copy stamps but that would not bind the appellate Court for the purpos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›