Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the tamil nadu debt relief act l of 1982 Page 1 of about 3,979 results (0.163 seconds)

Apr 07 2003 (HC)

Duraiswamy Naicker Vs. Kaliammal,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2003)2MLJ823

..... -judgment debtors under the tamilnadu debt relief act (l of 1982) before the executing court is valid.9. now let us see the definition of 'debtor' as given in the act. the word 'debtor' is defined under section 3(d) of the tamil nadu debt relief act (l of 1982) (hereinafter called as 'act') as follows:-'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual ..... the plaintiff-decree holder that the defendants have not claimed any benefit under the said act and therefore, they are precluded from making any claim under the subsequent act. it is seen that the defendants have claimed the benefit under the tamil nadu debt relief act (l of 1982) only before the executing court and it is therefore contended that the defendants-judgment ..... debtors are precluded from making such a claim. 7. the debt relief acts are legislations enacted to obviate the difficulties and to provide relief to certain indebted persons from the usurious practices of pawnbrokers ..... rw1 has admitted in the cross examination that her annual income is rs. 5,000/- and therefore, the judgment-debtors are not entitled to the relief conferred under the tamilnadu debt relief act (l of 1982). this fact was also not properly considered by the executing court. as far as the second aspect is concerned, the learned advocate for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1986 (HC)

Singaram Chettiar Vs. Valathammal Achi

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1987)1MLJ76

..... 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 to the judgment- ..... two 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 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 1990 (HC)

Pechiammal and ors. Vs. Devakottai Nattukottai Nagarathar Dharma Parib ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1990)1MLJ67

..... deceased judgment-debtor 1st respondent in the execution petition, contended before the court below that they were debtors under the tamil nadu debt relief acts 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982 and that hence the decree debt should be deemed to have been discharged under the said acts, consequently, the abovesaid e.p. would not lie. (the definition of the term 'debtor' and other relevant ..... representatives of the original debtor, who incurred the debt. there their lordships observed thus:but, in view of the special acts, namely, debt relief acts enacted by the state, if the debtor ..... satisfies the definition of the word 'debtor' the entire debt is liable to ..... each of them would be a 'debtor' under the act.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice to full bench decision reported in kaliyammal v. ragiurama gounder (1989) 1 l.w. 253 holding that the definition of the debtor in tamil nadu debt relief acts 38 of 1972, 50 of 1982 and 13 of 1980 would include the heirs and legal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1989 (HC)

Kaliyammal and ors. Vs. Raghurama Gounder

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1989Mad286

..... relief of certain indebted persons in the state of tamil nadu.'and under act l3 of 1980 and under act 50 of 1982 ..... reads as follows-'an act to provide for the ..... whether the provisions of act iv of 1938 particularly, the definitions of 'debtor' 'debt' 'creditor' 'mortgagee, 'person' are in pari materia with the prpvisions of the tamil nadu debt relief acts 38 of 1972. 13 of 1980 and act 50 of 1982. the preamble of act iv of 1938, reads as follows-'an act to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists in the state of tamil nadu'.while the preamble of act 38 of 1972 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2004 (HC)

Arasa Kumar and anr. Vs. Nallammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : II(2005)BC127; [2006]129CompCas451(Mad); 2004(4)CTC261; (2004)3MLJ252; [2005]57SCL5(Mad)

..... is maintainable.25. easwaramoorthy velar v. parvathammal, : 2000(1)ctc412 deals with a case under the tamil nadu debts reliefs act (act 40 of 1979, 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982), wherein, the learned judge (s.s. subramani, j.) has observed,'14. the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1982, was passed by the legislature to give benefit to the indebted agriculturists. merely because a summary remedy is ..... provided before the tribunal, the law does not say that the debtor cannot invoke the jurisdiction of civil court. right of redemption is a common law remedy. the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1982 ..... bring out a civil suit. it was argued in the said case that the civil suit was not maintainable, by pointing out section 156 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1983; which states,'bar of jurisdiction of civil courts: notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force nor order or ..... respect of the co-operative societies act, arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 and also section 29 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 and under rule 40 of the income tax (certificate proceedings) rules, 1962 an also the bar under the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 were all considered by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1997 (HC)

indira Ammal Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1997)2MLJ508

..... litigation. he further submitted that in view of section 4(2) and also section 5(c) of the act 50 of 1982 the present application should not have been entertained by the respondents.5. he invited my attention to section 3(vi) of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1982, which reads as follows:whether individually or jointly owns in this state or elsewhere any other immovable property ..... should interference and quash the impugned orders.6. on the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the provisions of section 4(ii) of the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1982 will not be applicable, he submitted that on the facts placed before the authority, they have extended the benefit to the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the ..... the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1976 (presidency act 31 of 1976), debt relief act 1980 (tamil nadu act 13 of 1980). only in so far as any debt to which any of these acts applied.further he also took me through section 5(c) of the said act, which reads as follows:every such application shall be made before the expiry of the period of six months from the 24th august, 1982 provided ..... (other than agricultural lands), the market value exceeds rs. 25,000.further he took me to section 4(2) of the said act. section 4(2) reads as follows:nothing contained in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1993 (HC)

Alagirisamy Naidu Vs. Dharmaraj Naidu

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1993)2MLJ462

..... . ex.a-2 is the counter filed by the respondent in the final decree petition. in para 4, he has stated that he is entitled to benefits of act 13 of 1980 and ordinance 9 of 1982. it is not in dispute that ordinance 9 of 1982 later became act 50 of 1982 ..... benefits of act 50 of 1982.4. i have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. ex. a-1 is the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit. in para 6 of the written statement, he had claimed the benefits of tamil nadu act 31 of 197)6 and the debt relief act of 1980 ..... . the provisions of the act 13 of 1980 and act 50 of 1982 ..... was not examined in the court below. mr. t.k. hariharan, would submit that he was authorised to give discharge under section 5 of tamil nadu act 50 of 1982 and though this certificate ex.b-1 was not a discharge certificate, it can be taken as a piece of evidence, without examination of ..... pursuance of the mortgage final decree. that was resisted by the respondent. he claimed that he is entitled to benefits of tamil nadu act 50 of 1982 and so it must be deemed that the decree was discharged. upholding the objections, the court below had held that the respondent was entitled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1999 (HC)

Easwaramoorthy Velar Vs. Parvathathammal

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2000(1)CTC412

..... the enactments expressly barred the institution of a suit. the only question is, whether the suit is impliedly barred in view of the procedure given in those enactments.14. the tamil nadu debt relief act, 1982 was passed by the legislature to give benefit to the indebted agriculturists. merely because a summary remedy is provided before the tribunal, the law does not say that thedebtor cannot ..... appellant is not prejudiced in any way.10. heard the counsel on both sides.11. before considering the bar of jurisdiction, let us take the relevant provision of act 40 of 1979, act 13 of 1980 and act 50 of 1982. under act 40 of 1979, there is no provision for release of mortgage on an application filed before the tahsildar. the same was incorporated under ..... per the said provision, the debtors are made eligible to apply for release of the mortgaged property. there is also similar provision under act 50 of 1982. section 7 of that act also makes a provision to get release of the mortgaged property if an application was made to the tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. it is also true ..... 1979?(2) whether the civil court has jurisdiction over the subject matter?7. the fact that the plaintiff is an agriculturist, entitled to the benefit of act 40 of 1979, act 13 of 1980 or act 50 of 1982 is concurrently found by thecourts below. in fact, the counsel for the appellant did not seriously contend those findings. even on merits, i do not find .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1988 (HC)

A. Subbiah Chettiar Vs. K.K.S. Mohammed Sheriff Rowther

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1989)2MLJ251

..... i.a. no. 332 of 1982 in o.s. no. 151 of 1982 under order 34, rule 5, code of civil procedure, praying for the passing of a final decree. that application was resisted by the respondent herein, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of tamil nadu debt relief act, act 13 of 1980, and therefore ..... , the preliminary decree should be declared to have been discharged.2. before the trial court, on behalf of the petitioner, ex. a. l was filed and the petitioner was examined as p.w.1, while, on behalf of the ..... was less than rs. 4,800. relying on ex:a-l, the only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under proviso (vii) to section 3(d) of the tamil nadu debt relief act, act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), it would suffice to deny the benefits of that act to the respondent, if the respondent jointly owned with another both ..... case, there are no materials to indicate the size of the family of the respondent, and he has, therefore, to be treated only as an individual. ex. a-l dated 25-10-1982 issued by the tahsildar, tirumayam, shows that sultan rowther, deceased brother of the respondent, and the respondent jointly owned nanja and punja lands with a well and a house .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1999 (HC)

Somu and Somu Vessels Merchant Anupparapalayam Vs. C. Arumugham

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ623

..... on the date of commencement of the special enactment and the suit instituted after commencement of the act. it is, thus, clear from the above decision that suit instituted after commencement of the tamil nadu agriculturist debt relief act, 1976 is liable to be dismissed. if the suit is filed by the plaintiff after commencement ..... it is alleged in the grounds of appeal that the decision reported in haribabu v. alamelu ammal was over ruled in kuttayan chettiar v. surendranathachary (1982) 1 m.l.j. 443.11. it is seen from the judgment of the appellate court that the appellate court relied upon a decision reported in haribabu v ..... the suit, the above firm was not registered. the suit is filed in the year 1980. the plaintiff's firm was registered on 3.7.1982. the old name somu and somu continued even after another partner retired from the partnership. it is, thus, seen that on the date of the ..... held that a suit instituted against agriculturist contrary to the provisions contained in section 3 of the act 15 of 1976 is not maintainable and that the same is liable to ..... on with the suit and that the act no where expressely said that the suit should be dismissed for contravening section 3. the above decision was not approved in the subsequent division bench of this court reported in kuttayan. chettiar v. surendranathachary (1982) 1 m.l.j. 443, the division bench has .....

Tag this Judgment!


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