Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Sonachalam Pillai And Ors. vs Kumaravelu Chettiar And Ors. on 16 September, 1927

This Application Is Filed By The vs M.V. Sea Success I And Another Reported ... on 11 September, 2009

In the first decision (Sonachalam Pillai v. Kumaravelu Chettiar), it was held that even if the cause title did not describe the suit as being brought in a representative capacity, one has to see whether the plaintiffs did in substance bring the suit in a representative character or capacity and whether the defendants contested the suit on the larger question affecting the plaintiffs on record as well as others whom they were representing.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Satrughna Behera vs Puri Municipality on 17 July, 1967

From the certificate of the public Analyst given in the report, presumption can be drawn particularly with reference to the mandatory procedures that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court would presume that rules and legal formalities were com. plied with as the officer is not presumed to deviate from the rules and formalities laid down for his guidance, See AIR 1928 Mad 77 Sonachalam Piliai v. Kumaravalu Chettiar.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

G. Simhagiri vs Govt. Of A.P. Rep. By Its Secretary, ... on 2 February, 2007

While it is true, as has been held in Sonachalam Pillai (6 supra), that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Courts must presume that the mandatory provisions of procedural law and rules and legal forms have been complied with by the Tribunal, while passing its order, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal would, by itself and without any further examination, establish that neither the procedural requirements of Section 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, nor those under the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and the A.P. Administrative (Practice) Rules, 1995 had been complied with, before the Original Applications were allowed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Central Brokers vs Ramnarayana Poddar And Co. on 15 April, 1954

Under these circumstances, decisions such as -- 'Sona-chalam Pillai v. Kumaravelu Chettiar', AIR 1924 Mad 597 (Z7); -- 'Pedda Jeeyangarla Varu v. Krishnamaeharlu', AIR 1927 Mad 393 (Z8); --'Pethapcrumal Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar', AIR 1927 Mad 592 (Z9); -- 'Abdul Nabhi Saheb v. Ramadashmamah', AIR 1948 Mad 371 (Z10) and 'In Re: T. K. Ratna Mudaliar', (Zll) all of which relate to grant, or refusal, to stay proceedings in execution under Order 41, Rule 5, C. P. C., raise different matters for consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

K.G. Rangaswami Chettiar And Co. And ... vs K.R. Eswaramurthy Goundar on 15 April, 1954

2. An important pronouncement where the point is practically 'ad idem' has been made by Krishnan and Waller JJ. in -- 'Sonachalam Pillai --v. Kumaravelu Chettiar', AIR 1924 Mad 597 (J), where it has been categorically laid down that an order of a single Judge of the High court refusing stay of execution of a decree of a mufassal Court pending an appeal to the High Court is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lal Mohan Dhupi And Anr. vs Ram Lakhmi Dassya And Ors. on 10 July, 1931

12. A history of the origin of the explanation and an exhaustive resume of the more important cases in this country which have any bearing upon it will be found in the order of Reference to a Pull Bench in the case of Sonachalam Pillai v. Kumaravelu Chettiar A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 77 and in the governing judgment in that case delivered by Ramesam, J., will be found a discussion of the principles of the law of res-judicata as were applied to representative suits in this country even before the Code of 1877, and to such suits in England even before 1873, when the Supreme Court Rules of Practice came into existence. From the case law bearing upon the point the following propositions appear to emerge:
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Kgeyes Residency P. Ltd vs M/S. Rukmani Road Ishwarya on 23 December, 2009

4. Learned counsel also submitted that in A.I.R. 1928 MADRAS 445 (SONACHALAM PILLAI v. KUMARAVELU CHETTIAR), this Court had held that the question whether the suit was filed in a representative capacity should be decided with regard to the substance and not to the form of pleadings. So, according to the learned counsel, this would apply to the present case. In the earlier suit, it was specifically averred that the the plaintiffs and the other co-owners would use the schedule property for the benefit and enjoyment of all the owners.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document
1   2 Next