Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Velayuda Mudali (Died) And Anr. vs The Co-Operative Rural Credit Society ... on 26 April, 1933

Malabar Hill Co-Operative Housing ... vs K.L. Gauba And Ors. on 11 January, 1963

12. Mr. Naik and Mr. Deshpande, the Assistant Government Pleader, Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, who also has supported the arguments of Mr. Naik, have referred us to some decisions reported in Velayuda Mudaji v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society, Ulakottal : Thadi Subbi Reddi, In re, 59 Mad LJ 229: (AIR 1930 Mad 869); Nirbhayadas v. Rameshwar ; Chunilal Ken v. Shyamlal Sukhram and lastly, Satdeo Pandey v. Baba Raghav Das . These decisions are distinguishable on facts. Only the last three decisions, viz. and are under the Contempt of Courts Act, but these cases relate to contempts of the Election Tribunal and the contempt of Revenue Courts, and, therefore, are not relevant to the issue which we have to decide, in 59 Mad LJ 223: (AIR 1930 Mad 869) the matter arose as to whether a complaint by a Registrar was necessary for prosecuting a party who had filed a forged document before him during the course of an enquiry held by him in respect of a dispute, and it was held that it was a court within me meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal procedure. It would be seen that this is not a decision under the Contempt of Courts Act and turns on the definition of the Court given in Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act itself. The learned judge deciding this case has himself made the position clear. It is observed at p. 231: (of Mad LJ); (at p. 869 of AIR);
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kalavagunta Sriramarao vs Kalavagunta Suryanarayanamurthi And ... on 10 October, 1952

This is clear authority that the proceedings under the Act are judicial and not administrative. It was next argued that even if the functions assigned to the authorities under the Act were judicial in character, that would confer "on them the status of a tribunal but not that of a court. That there is a real distinction between a tribunal and a court cannot be disputed; though it may often be fine and sometimes difficult to oefine. There is no definition of court either in the Madras Co-operative Societies Act or the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, nor one under the General Clauses Act. Section 3, Evidence Act defines court as including all judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators legally authorised to take evidence. It was argued that as the reference to Section 51, Madras Co-operative Societies Act is to arbitrators and as their decision is termed an award the authorities acting under that Act are not courts according to this definition. This contention was repelled by this court in --'Velayudha Mudali v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society', AIR 1934 Mad 40 (I), where the question was whether the Registrar acting under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act was a court. Dealing with the argument that the decision is by an arbitrator and that it is an award Walsh J. observed :
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

K.M.Sr.K. Lankaram vs O.K.S. Sundaragopala Aiyar And Ors. on 3 September, 1940

15. With great respect to the learned Chief Justice, as he then was, we find ourselves in complete agreement with his observation and feel that the observation by Pakenham Walsh, J., in Velayuda Mudali v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society, Ulakottai (1933) 66 M.L.J. 90 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 426 , was too general and, in view of the fact that the properties although sold as free of encumbrance were found to be subject to a prior mortgage, perhaps unnecessary.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rama Rao And Anr. vs Narayan And Anr. on 20 December, 1968

In Velayude Mudali and another v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society and others (AIR 1934 Mad 40), a single Judge of the Madras High Court, following the judgment in Thadi Subbi Reddi's case, (AIR 1930 Mad 369) observed that a Registrar of Co-operative Societies acting under Section 14 of the rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act is a Court, and the rule of lis nendens applied to the proceeding before the Registrar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1