Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1990 (12) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a decree on April 23, 1981, in O.S. No. 8 of 1980, Sub-Court, Kavarathi, Laccadives Island. The execution petition was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, as the company address was given as No. 67, Village Road, Nungambakkam, Madras. The amount sought to be recovered in the execution petition is Rs. 6,872.75. The relief is prayed for under Order 21, rule 41, Civil Procedure Code, to orally examine the director of the company for means of satisfying the decree and also to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the assets of the company. As the notice in the execution petition could not be served because of the endorsement made by the bailiff that there was no such company in the address given by the petitioner herein, the execution....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en the registered address of the company as No. 20/1, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010, with effect from April 1, 1986. It is stated that there was a change in the original address of the company and the new address was given to the Registrar in Form No. 18 dated September 29, 1989, on January 12, 1990. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to take steps to execute the decree by giving the correct address of the judgment debtor which is now disclosed by the Registrar as No. 20/1, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the first respondent-company has violated the provisions of sections 146 and 147 of the Act and is, therefore, liable to be prosecuted. Under sub-section (1) of section 146,....