Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Chikkanna Chettiar Alias V.S. Nanjappa ... vs V.S. Perumal Chettiar And Anr. on 23 February, 1940

Poorasami vs The Special Thasildar

Though the reasoning of the Bench in A. Mahalinga Kudumban and others v. Theetharappan Mudalliar was dissented from by a Full Bench of this Court http://www.judis.nic.in 14/20 CRP. PD.No.1920 of 2018 in N.K.R.M. Rajagopala Chettiar v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, represented by its President R. Surya Rao and four others, the correctness of the said reasoning and conclusion of the Bench was restored by a subsequent Full Bench of this Court in Chikkanna Chettiar v. V.S. Perumal Chettiar and another. In view of the above decisions, it is unnecessary to consider the decisions of other Courts bearing on this point.”
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Suraj Narain Yadav vs Fuleshwar Yadav on 3 January, 1987

The High Courts in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal.... It was so held in Chikkanna Chettiar v. V.S. Perumal Chettiar A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 474 (F.B.), which was a case arising under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Full Bench held that :
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Custodian, Evacuee Property vs Amarnath And Ors. on 28 May, 1981

The value of the subject matter in appeal shall be Rs. 2,000/- and not Rupees 5,000/- or Rs. 7,000/-. Suppose in another case the Land Acquisition Court has not found the appellant entitled to any share, the value of the subject matter in appeal against such an order would be the actual amount of compensation claimed by the appellant. Viewed thus, provisions of Section 8 would apply to appeals against decrees passed in references under Section 31 in spirit, though not in letter. The net result no doubt may be the same, still it is difficult to subscribe to the view taken in AIR 1968 Madh Pra 228 (supra) that Section 8 would in terms apply to appeals against decrees passed in references made under Section 31. Section 31 of the Act, it may be pointed out, corresponds to Section 30 of the Central Act.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A S Anand - Full Document

Motte Rajaram vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Anr. on 13 February, 2006

15. Further, the above referred two judgments rendered by the High Court of Madras Mahalinga v. Theetharappa and Ramachandra v. Ramachandra, (supra) have been, in fact, had again fallen for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in Chikkanna v. Perumal AIR 1940 Mad. 474. The said Full Bench, while referring and affirming the views expressed in the above referred two judgments, further observed that an order must be taken to decide that an order not merely the order on appeal but an order determining a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act. Further that, it was admitted that there was no difference in principle between the two sections and consequently, they are to be regarded as a decree but not as an award.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - B S Reddy - Full Document

A.M. Chengalvaroya Chetty vs The Collector Of Madras And Ors. on 6 March, 1964

Again the view expressed in ILR 59 Mad 554: (AIR 1936 Mad 514), has not been accepted by the Full Bench in Chikkanna Chettiar v. Perumal Chettiar, AIR 1940 Mad 474: ILR (1940) Mad 791. That case was concerned with the order made by a Judge appointed under S. 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, allocating the compensation amount; that the order was held to be appealable as a decree. Therefore, the effect of the question of title to compensation money made by a Court acting under Ss. 30 and 31(2) of the Act will amount to a decree and will be appealable as such under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. This right appeal is independent of the one conferred by S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Loomchand Sait vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy ... on 10 July, 1973

12. The next Question for consideration is what exactly is the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, in cases where an appeal is preferred against an order of Court made on a reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act. The decision referred to above, namely 56 Mad LJ 387 = (AIR 1929 Mad 223) deals with this question as well. That decision dealt with the Court-fees Art. 1870. namely the Central Act 7 of 1870 hereinafter referred to as the Central Act. It held :
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next