Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)The Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949
Section 3 in The Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
M.P.S. Al. Alagappa Chettiar vs Nachiappa Chettiar on 30 November, 1951
In Alagappa v. Nachiappa (1953) 2 M.L.J. 298 : I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 996 it has been held that the words " before the commencement of the Act " contained in Section 19 (1) of Madras Act IV of 1938 which confers a right on the judgment-debtor against whom a decree has been passed before the Act, must be construed in the case of a merged State like Pudukottah as before 1st January, 1950, when Act IV of 1938 was first extended to the Pudukottah State. Mr. Rajagopala Iyer, however, contends that the term " commencement of the Act " in Section 19(2) of the Agriculturists Relief Act will not be the same thing as " coming into force of the Act. " According to the learned Counsel by virtue of the Madras Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949, it can only be held that the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act came into force on 1st January, 1950, and that date would not be the date of commencement of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act which was 22nd March, 1938. We are, however, unable to accept that contention. So far as a merged territory is concerned the Agriculturists Relief Act should be deemed to commence to operate only from 1st January, 1950. We respectfully agree with the observations of Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in the case referred to above that while reading the expression " commencement of the Act " we should take it that it was from 1st January, 1950. If that were done, the respondent satisfies the conditions of the definition of the term " agriculturist " in the Act and he would be entitled to apply for the scaling down of the decree debt under Section 19(2) of the Act. The question then is whether relief could be granted to the respondent on an application which was filed for amendment of the decree even before that Madras Act XXVIII of 1956, came into force. It cannot be disputed that on the date of the application the respondent could not be regarded as an agriculturist according to the law as it then stood.
Section 7 in The Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Rajoo Alias Doraisami Goundar And Ors. vs Palaniyappa Chettiar And Ors. on 16 September, 1940
This part of the judgment of the learned Judge need not detain us long as it is opposed to the decisions of this Court reported in Rajoo v. Palaniappa Chettiar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 817 and Sarwesvara Rao v. Umamaheswara Rao (1940) 2 M.L.J. 841. These decisions which we accept with respect as having been correctly decided were certainly binding on the learned Judge. The respondent as stated earlier was admittedly assessed to foreign income-tax during the years 1936-37 and 1937-38 and if the definition of the term " agriculturist " in Section 3 of the Act had not been amended, he would certainly fall outside the purview of the Act. The substantial question therefore which falls to be considered is whether the respondent would be entitled to take advantage of the amended definition of the term agriculturist, for scaling down the debt under the decree which has become final before such amendment came into force and whether he could obtain relief in an application filed by him before the date of the amendment itself.