Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
L.Rmk.L. Kannan @ Ramakrishnan vs L.Rmk. Narayanan And Ors. on 22 October, 1990 cites

P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar vs K.P.C. Mahalinga Nadar Alias Katteri ... on 16 September, 1935

In Chidambara Nadar v. Mahalinga Nadar 70 M.L.J. 282 : 168 I.C. 948 : A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 321, Venkatasubba Rao, Officiating Chief Justice rejected a claim by a party-receiver for rent for using a portion of his house for the purposes of the business which he was managing as receiver. The learned Judge observed, The receiver was a party to the suit and does not profess to have actually paid the rent but claims it on the ground that a portion of his house has been used for the purposes of the business. Having offered to discharge the duties without remuneration, he is hardly justified in claiming this amount.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

B. Soundarapandian vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 16 July, 1981

16. The said observation were quoted with approval by a Division Bench of this Court in D. Soundarapandian v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India . The Bench had to consider the fixation of remuneration of receiver appointed under Section 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act (XV of 1948). Referring to the provisions of Order 34, Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1956, under which normally 5% on the total value of the realisations is claimable by way of remuneration by a receiver, the bench observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1