Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing V. Kalyanasundaram Pillai vs R.M.L.S. Chockalingam Chettiar on 18 April, 1951

Pamulapati Bhushayya vs Kommareddy Chinnapareddi And Anr. on 13 April, 1959

In Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Chockalingam Chettiar, a Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Govinda Menon J., and Chandra Reddy J., (as he then was) dealt with a case specifically under the Central Excise and Salt Act of 1944 where the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 and Rules 102, 103 and 104 were considered. It was there held that the sale by Court in execution of a decree of the leasehold interest of the judgment-debtor in suit pans is neither void ab initio as being opposed to public policy, nor prohibited by the Central Excises and Salt Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.M. Kanniappa Nadar vs K.K. Karuppiah Nadar on 1 February, 1961

Nor did the learned Judge consider the earlier decision of a Bench of this court reported in Kalyanasundaram v. Chockalingam Chettiar where a question arose to the validity of the sale (i.e. a transfer) of a leasehold interest of the judgment debtor in certain salt pans (manufacture of salt being regulated by the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944). It was there held that the sale could not be held to be ab initio void as being opposed to public policy nor prohibited by the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, although the purchaser had no licence under the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.M.A. Abdul Rasheed vs A.M.A. Abdul Batcha And Ors. on 27 April, 1979

9. Mr. Venkataraman, counsel for the appellant contended that since the amount covered by the decree is nothing but arrears of rent, straightaway the sub-section gets applied and by virtue of the recent amendment in Act VIII of 1973, the entire interest prior to 1st March, 1972 being wiped out, the decree amount cannot be realised 'from the appellant. The Sub-section (9)(a)(i) of the Act existed even before 1972 and the point as to whether the rent paid under a lease back arrangement by the mortgagor will be interest or only rent had come up for consideration before this Court even as early as 1952, and it was decided in Kalyanasundaram v. Chockalingam that:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1