Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987
Unico Trading & Chit Funds (India) P. ... vs S.H. Lohati And Ors. on 20 March, 1981
15. The question is whether on that account the first respondent is entitled to the benefit of s. 3 of the KDR Act. I see two difficulties in the way. First, in the aforementioned case, Unico Trading and Chit Funds (India) P. Ltd. v. S. R. Lohati [1982] 52 Comp Cas 340 (Kar), I have already held that a company court is not a civil court, in the sense, a civil court is normally understood and as defined in the CPC. The power exercised by this court under s. 446 of the Companies Act is a special power and the court functions as a company court. While it may enjoy all the powers of civil court or for that matter of criminal court in certain circumstances, it is yet not a civil court. The bar for entertaining any suit or other proceeding under s. 3(b) of the KDR Act is in regard to civil court and not to any other court.
Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959
Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Narayana Prabhu And Ors. vs Janardhana Mallan And Ors. on 10 July, 1973
20. Similarly, in the case of Narayana Prabhu v. Janardhana Mallan, , a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, when a similar question arose as to whether a chit transaction was a debt or not, held as follows (headnote) :