Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: tamil nadu debt relief act 1972 Page 1 of about 46,645 results (0.363 seconds)

Jan 17 1978 (HC)

Pechiammal Vs. Punnaivanan Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1979Mad140

..... than the agricultural lands for an annual value if more than rs.1200 i hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the tamil nadu debt relief act 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of 1972). in fact, mr. thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly conceded before me that once the additional documents are received in evidence he could not assert ..... the consideration for ex a.3. came to be stated as rs. 4500. the appellant further claimed that he was entitled to the benefits of the tamil nadu debt relief act 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of 1972). consequently he claimed that the amounts paid towards the three mortgages should be appropriated towards the principal of rs.6500 he further stated that he would be ..... relief act (tamil nadu act iv of 1938) as amended by the tamil nadu agriculturists relief act (tamil nadu 8 of 1973)8. according to mr. jayaraman, the provisions of ss.8(2), 8 (3) and 8 (4) and explanation i of tamil nadu act 4 of 1938 as amended by tamil nadu act 8 of 1972 are in pari materia with the provision of sections 7 (1), 7 (2) and 7 (3) and explanation i of the tamil nadu debt relief act. 1972 ..... decision already referred to by me. i hold that by a construction of s.7 (2) and explanation i of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of 1972). the entire interest due under the deed up to 1-3-1972 would stand wiped out and whatever payments that have been already made will be appropriated towards the principal and the appellant will .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2001 (SC)

P. Nirathilingam Vs. Annaya Nadar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2002SC42; I(2002)BC1(SC); JT2001(9)SC344; 2001(7)SCALE583; (2001)9SCC673

..... mortgaged.14. section 4 of the act contains the provision regarding relief from indebtedness. it reads as follows:4. relief from indebtedness : (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the tamil nadu agriculturists relief act, 1938 (tamil nadu act 1 of 1938), the tamil nadu pawnbrokers act, 1943 (tamil nadu act xxiii of 1943) the tamil nadu money-lenders act, 1957 (tamil nadu act xxiv of 1957) the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 (tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972), the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1976 (president's act xxxi of 1976), the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1979 (tamil nadu act xl of 1979) or in ..... any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as otherwise expressly provided in this act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1999 (HC)

Seeniammal Alias Indirani Vs. Piramasankari Alias Kamalam and 7 Others

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC13; (1999)IIMLJ440

..... of 1980 as stated.9. it is relevant to consider the definitions of the terms 'debtor', 'person' and 'family' and other relevant sections of the act.section 2(7) of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of j972), defines a 'person' as follows:' 'person' means an individual and includes an undivided hindu family, a marumakkattayam or aliyasantana tarward or tavazhi, but ..... does not include a body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporate company or association or any firm as defined in the indian partnership act, 1932 (central act 9 ..... suit was resisted stating that the suit filed was time barred. it was further pleaded that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of tamil nadu debt relief act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act 13 of 1980)3. the trial court on consideration held that the suit is not time barred and that the defendants have property worth ..... an appeal, filed by the defendants, the finding regarding execution of the decree was upheld. however, it was held that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of tamil nadu act 13 of 1980 as they constitute three different families. the plaintiff filed the second appeal, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. the question was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1986 (SC)

R. Subramania Iyer Vs. Deivanai Achi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC171

g.l. oza and; k.n. singh, jj.1. this appeal arises out of special leave petition (civil) no. 3175 of 1973 granted by this court. the only question is as to whether the advantage of section 15 of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 was available the appellant judgment-debtor.2. admittedly the judgment-debtor was entitled to file an application under section 15 of the tamil nadu debt relief act for scaling down of the decretal amount but this application had to be filed within six months after the publication of the notification of the act. it is not disputed that the application under section 15 of the tamil nadu debt relief act was not filed within the specified time but the point of dispute is that the application under section 16 of the tamil nadu debt relief act was filed for stay of the execution. the executing court as well as the high court took the view that no benefit would be given to the judgment-debtor as the application under section 15 has not been filed within the time prescribed. the view taken by the courts below is correct. we see no reason to interfere in this appeal. the appeal, is, therefore, dismissed. interim stay vacated. parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1996 (HC)

Sundaram Vs. Varadaiyar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1996(2)CTC515; (1996)IMLJ335

..... appeal.2. the one and the only contention urged before us is that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as the act, therefore, he filed an application under section 15 of the act, that on the date of filing of the application the decree holder had not drawn the amount and the decree had ..... for consideration is as to whether on the date the application was filed by the appellant under section 15 of the act the debt was subsisting. the act was published in the tamil nadu government gazette on 15th december, 1972.clause (2) of section 2 states: -' 'debt' means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from a debtor whether payable under a decree ..... had a right to seek scaling down of the debt as per section 15 of the act, he did not avail of that right before the debt stood extinguished by reason of execution of the decree and recording of satisfaction of the decree, therefore the principle laid down in vinsithurthan chettiar v. the government of tamil nadu, 95 l.w. 374, applies to the instant ..... filed, the decree had stood fully satisfied, therefore, there was no decree subsisting and there was no debt to be scaled down. the learned single judge has followed the decision of a division bench of this court in vinsithurthan chettiar v. the government of tamil nadu, 95 lav. 374 and distinguished a full bench decision of this court in bangaru chettiar v. san .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1977 (HC)

V.K. Margachari and anr. Vs. M.R. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ74

..... benefits of the said act on the ground that he is not an agriculturist. though in the plaint it has been specifically averred that the appellants are ..... case, the preliminary decree has been passed on 22nd december, 1972 and the final decree has been passed on 2nd july, 1974. at no stage prior to the passing of the decree, the appellants claimed that they are agriculturists . on the other hand, they claimed benefit only under the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972, tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972. in fact, the first appellant was held entitled to the ..... the same was contrary to section 23-c of the tamil nadu agriculturists debt relief act (iv of 1938), as amended by act viii of 1973. these two applications were opposed both by the decree-holder and the court auction-purchaser on the ground that the appellants having claimed and obtained the benefits of the tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972 on the basis that they are debtors as defined .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1978 (HC)

Nagapattinam Permanent Fund Limited by Its Secretary Vs. N. Thirunavuk ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ244

..... had not understood the scheme of section 3 of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 nor the inter-relation between sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (a) of that section.8. i think this point is well taken, as a matter of statutory construction. ..... itself with the requisite licence from the reserve bank. on these assumptions, the question still would be whether the appellant can claim that the decree debt owed to it by the respondent is not covered by the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972, but stands excluded from its purview, under sub-clauses (4) and (b) of clause (h) of section 3, because the appellant is a public ..... was necessary for a banking company in order to enable it to function as such under the banking regulation act, 1949 in this view, the learned district judge concluded that the debt in this case cannot be taken out of the purview of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972.7. the appellant canvasses the correctness of the district judge's view. he says that the learned judge ..... . there was no dispute that the appellant was a public company within the meaning of the companies act, 1956. the learned d strict munsif, therefore, had no hesitation in holding that the debt in the present cast stood excluded from the purview of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972. he accordingly rejected the respondent's application for scaling down the decree as incompetent.6. on appeal, however .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1982 (HC)

M. Thangavelu Chetty Vs. Chinnasamy and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1983Mad21

..... shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of the act.'the relevant provision in the 1976 act is s. 4 (b), which is as follows:-'4, notwithstanding anything contained in the tamil nadu agriculturists relief act, 1938, the tamil nadu pawn brokers act, 1943, the tamil nadu moneylenders act, 1957, the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972, the tamil nadu indebted agriculturists (temporary relief) act, 1976, the tamil nadu indebted persons (temporary relief) act, 1976, or in any other law for the time being ..... in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as otherwise expressly provided in this act, with effect on ..... and from the commencement of this act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1982 (HC)

M. Thangavelu Chetty Vs. Chinnasamy and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1982)2MLJ142

..... shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this act.the relevant provision in the 1976 act in section(4)(b), which is as follows:a. notwithstanding anything contained in the tamil nadu agriculturists relief act, 1938, the tamil nadu pawnbrokers act, 1943, the tamil nadu moneylenders act, 1957, the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972, the tamil nadu indebted agriculturists' (temporary relief) act, 1976, the tamil nadu indebted persons (temporary relief) act, 1976, or in any other law for the time being ..... in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as other wise expressly provided in this act, with effect on ..... and from the commencement of this act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1986 (HC)

Singaram Chettiar Vs. Valathammal Achi

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ76

..... definition of 'creditor' included his heirs, legal representatives and assign while debtor meant any person from whom any debt is due. thus the two definitions in act 38 of 1972 are quite different from those found in the act. therefore, the ruling relied on by the learned ..... definitions will undisputedly indicate that the debt like the present one will not be a debt as defined under the act. it is now useful to refer to the decision of n.s. ramaswami, j., in abdul aziz v. yasodammal and anr. 1977 t.l.n.j. 347. that was a decision rendered under the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1972 (tamil nadu act 38 of 1972). in that case, the ..... 1974 on the file of the subordinate judge, sivagangai brought by the decree-holder for attachment and sale of the immovable properties, the judgment-debtor claimed, protection under the tamil nadu debt relief act no. 50 of 1982. it is relevant to note that the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels weighing 61 sovereigns entrusted by the decree-holder ..... it is essential to note the object behind the act as also the definition of 'creditor' in the act. the object is to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the state of tamil nadu from the usurious practices of pawn-brokers money-lenders and other non-institutional sources of credit and to give relief from the debts due to such pawnbrokers, money-lenders and other .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //