Chennai Court February 1997 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.
Faiz Mohideen Vs. M.S. Sreeramulu Chetty and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC513; (1997)IIMLJ78
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The second judgment debtor in O.S.No. 1650 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, is the revision petitioner. Since caveat has been entered by the decree holder, with the consent of the parties, the civil revision petition has been heard.2. The decree holder/respondent obtained a decree on 8.12.1981 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,000 against the firm 1st defendant and as per the decree, the entire decree amount has to be discharged in 23 instalments at the rate of Rs. 1000. It is not disputed that the agreement was violated and the amount was not paid in time. The decree holder filed execution petition for the recovery of the same.3. In the counter statement filed by the revision petitioner, he contended that the execution petition is not maintainable, and since the decree is against the firm, it could not be proceeded against the petitioner in his individual capacity. He further said that the decree was passed by the Sub Court, Krishnagi...
Anbalagan Vs. Periasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ69
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. Though the matter was posted for settlement, since the appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the 2nd respondent in full quit of the decree obtained by the said respondent against the father of the appellant, today the respondents' counsel reports that his clients are not willing for the terms. It is admitted that the execution petition was filed for a sum of Rs. 78,000 in 1984. When the principal amount is Rs. 2,80,000 after giving due credit to the payments made by the father of the appellant, the arrears being Rs. 78,000 the respondent herein filed the execution petition. After the court's suggestion, the appellant herein had deposited a sum of Rs,40,000 in full quit of the claim. But, however, the counsel for the respondents represented that the second respondent is not agreeable for any settlement, since the execution is levied for the balance of Rs. 78,000 as on 1984. Before ever the disposal of the E.P., the appellant herein has filed the suit O...
S. Mohan Sambasivam Vs. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC573
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. 106307/94/J2, dated 26,7.1995 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in L1/317335/95, dated 13.9.1995, confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent mentioned above, and to quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the successful bidder of IMFL retail shop NO.9/95-96, Dindigul, in terms of Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (for, short 'Rules'), in the auction held on 9.5.1995, as his bid amount was Rs. 3,33,500 being highest. The auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and he applied under Rule 13 of the Rules in Form VI to the 3rd respondent for the grant of licence with the prescribed fee. The 3rd respondent, the licensing authority also granted licence in Form VII after, being satisfied that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirem...