Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing K.V. Janakirama Iyer vs Radhakrishna Chettiar And Anr. on 17 February, 1987

R.Jeyaraman vs K.P.V.Sundaramoorthy on 25 August, 2009

11.The above said reasoning of the Hon'ble High Court in the respectful opine of this Hon'ble High Court is not legally correct. Merely because the proviso has not been mentioned by the Parliament it cannot be construed that the same has been removed from the statute. Moreover the proviso having been introduced by the Hon'ble High Court there is no necessity for the Parliament either to reintroduced or to remove the same. In the judgment reported in 1987- II M.L.J. 320 [A.SHANMUGHAM vs.LAKSHMIPATHY NAIDU AND ANOTHER], the Hon'ble High Court has held that in such a situation it can only be held that the proviso is a case of legislation in an unoccupied field and therefore, the same cannot be taken as inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of the Principal Act. This Court is in respectful agreement with the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore on a consideration of the above said legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the proviso as it stood prior to be introduced of the Act 104 of 1976 continuous even thereafter.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Karunanidhi Mudaliar vs Lakshmanan on 29 June, 2010

A mere poring over and perusal of the said judgment would amply make the point clear that furnishing of security is not compulsory in all cases. By that, what the Division Bench laid down as law was that, as per Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC, the Court is enjoined to apply its mind as to the necessity on the part of the jugment debtor to furnish security and whereupon alone notice has to be given to the judgment debtor to furnish security and in my opinion, it implies that on receipt of notice, the judgment debtor is entitled to explain and expound to the Court that he is not liable to furnish any security, whereupon, reasoned order has to be passed by the Court and if the judgement debtor fails to comply with the furnishing of security, then he would face rejection of that unnumbered application.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - G Rajasuria - Full Document
1