Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing R. Dharmarajan vs Nagalinga Kandiar And Anr. on 22 November, 1974

Bangaru Chettiar vs San Basha Sahib And Anr. on 30 April, 1976

In Dharmarajan v. Nagalinga Kandiar (1972) 2 M.L.J. 34, N.S. Ramaswami, J. had expressed the view that it applies only to sales held after 1st March, 1972 but before the publication of the Act VIII of 1973, that the words "the sale has not been confirmed before the publication of the said Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette or 90 days have riot elapsed from the confirmation of the sale or from the foreclosure at such publication" occurring in the section clearly indicate that the sale which is sought to be set aside should have taken place prior to the publication of Act VIII of 1973 as then alone the question of sale not having been confirmed before the publication of the Act, or 90 days having not elapsed from such confirmation, would arise.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Venkataswami Reddiar vs Thirukamu Reddiar And Ors. on 8 December, 1976

2. The question which arose for determination in that appeal was whether Section 23-C of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act (VIII of 1973) is applicable to a case in which the property is sold after the coming into force of the Act. The learned District Munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to invoke the aid of Section 23-C of the aforesaid Act, since the application invoking Section 23-C was filed within 90 days from the date on which the sale was confirmed. The sale was held on 19th February, 1973, and it was confirmed on 23rd March, 1973. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal held that Section 23-C of the Act would be applicable only if the sale had been held before the Act came into force. I was of the view that Section 23-C would apply even in cases where the sales had taken place after the commencement of the Act. Subsequent to my order, a Full Bench of this Court in Dharmarajan v. Nagalinga Kandiyar has held that Section 23-C of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act cannot be invoked when the sale had taken place after the commencement of the Act. In view of that decision, a review of the order passed "by me has been asked for.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bangaru Chettiar vs San Basha Sahib And Anr. on 30 April, 1976

In Dharmarajan v. Nagalinga Kandiar, 1975-2 Mad LJ 34, N.S. Ramaswami J. has expressed the view that it applies only to sales held after 1st March 1972, but before the publication of Act 8 of 1973, that the words 'the sale has not been confirmed before the publication of the said Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette or 90 days have not elapsed from the confirmation of the sale of from the foreclosure at such publication' occurring in the section clearly indicate that the sale which is sought to be set aside should have taken place prior to the publication of Act 8 of 1973 as then alone the question of sale not having been confirmed before the publication of the Act, or 90 days having not elapsed from such confirmation would arise.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Saranga Padayachi vs Vairakannu Chettiar on 26 February, 1976

5. The learned Counsel for the judgment debtor referred to my decision in Dharmarajan v. Nagalinga Kandiar , and that rendered by Justice Mohan, reported in Krishnamurthi Iyer v. Sethurama Iyer (1976) 1 M.L.J. 10, in the course of his arguments. But those cases were concerned with the question whether if a Court-sale had taken place after the commencement of the amendment Act (VIII of 1973), the judgment-debtor can invoke Section 23(c) and pray for setting aside the same. It was held that the judgment-debtor having had enough opportunity to file an application under Section 19 (before the Court-sale takes place) in respect of sales which take place after the publication of Act VIII of 1973, Section 23(c) cannot be invoked. Those decisions have nothing to do with the question of limitation that arises in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1