Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.82 seconds)
Documents citing Vidya Charan Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association And ... on 3 January, 1991

E. Senthilkumar And Others vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 16 November, 1995

We are in entire agreement with the above view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another (supra), Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 1990. Inasmuch as by the order under Appeal, the learned single Judge has declared that the first respondent is entitled to quarry sand in the area in question for a period of 3 1/2 months and directed the respondents 2 to 4 to permit the first respondent to quarry sand for a period of 3 1/2 months from May 1, 1993, we are inclined to hold that such an order is a Judgment for the purpose of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in hold-ing that the present appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, applying the ratio of the said decision, it follows that the L.P.A., has to be held as maintainable to the extent it relates to the direction issued by the learned Judge. Point No. 3 is answered on the affirmative.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E. Senthilkumar And Ors. vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 16 November, 1995

We are in entire agreement with the above view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Anr. Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1990. Inasmuch as by the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has declared that the first respondent is entitled to quarry sand in the area in question for a period of 3 1/2 months and directed the respondents 2 to 4 permit the first respondent to quarry sand for a period of 3 1/2 months from 1.5.1993, we are inclined to hold that such an order is a 'judgment' for the purpose of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that the order under appeal satisfies the conditions prescribed in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, applying the ratio of the said decision, it follows that the L.P.A., has to be held as maintainable to the extent it relates to the direction issued by the learned single Judge. Point No. 3 is answered on the affirmative.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

G. Subramanian vs Mr. K. Phanindra Reddy on 10 February, 2023

In addition to the same, they also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 14.8.1990 in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, C.A. No. 5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1990; R. Rajagopal v. M.P. Chellamuthu and 3 others, 1993 (2) LW 225; and J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, 1996 (6) SCC 291, and concluded that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

G. Subramanian vs Mr. K. Phanindra Reddy on 10 February, 2023

In addition to the same, they also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 14.8.1990 in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, C.A. No. 5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1990; R. Rajagopal v. M.P. Chellamuthu and 3 others, 1993 (2) LW 225; and J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, 1996 (6) SCC 291, and concluded that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 1 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

R. Rajagopal vs M.P. Chellamuthu And Ors. on 26 July, 1993

We are in entire agreement with the above view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Anr. Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1990, Inasmuch as by the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has declared that the first respondent is entitled to quarry sand in the area in question for a period of 3 1/2 months and directed the respondents 2 to 4 to permit the first respondent to quarry sand for a period of 3 1/2 months from 1.5.1993, we are inclined to hold that such an order is a 'judgment' for the purpose of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that the order under appeal satisfies the conditions prescribed in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

All Bengal Excise Licensees ... vs Raghabendra Singh & Ors on 9 March, 2007

9) Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Assn. & Anr. AIR 1991 Madras 323 (FB) "56-57. Adverting to the facts of this case, we knew that the main relief in the suit to declare that the notice dated 26-5-1990 issued by the first and second defendants on the basis of the requisition notices convening a Special General Meeting of the Association on 15-6-1990 is illegal, null and void cannot be said to have become infructuous merely because the Court instead of granting an injunction to hold the meeting on 15-6-1990, gave a direction to consider an agenda of no-confidence against the Executive Council and election of new President and members of the Council in a particular manner. It can still be found in the suit that the notice was illegal, null and void and as a consequence, the Court may suitably modulate the relief or permit the plaintiffs to amend the relief. Besides this the trial Court will have jurisdiction to consider the grant of a mandatory injunction even in a suit which stood disposed of if its decree is found to have been violated or frustrated. The trial Court being a Court of Record will have special jurisdiction/inherent power to pass such orders as are deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice since this power is saved for it under Sections 4 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution. The instant suit which is still pending, shall give to the Court power to consider the desirability to grant a mandatory injunction, for the reason of its interim injunction having been violated, to remove the violation and until the suit is finally decided to preserve the property in dispute in Status Quo."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 110 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bell Products Private Limited vs M.K. Gupta on 25 September, 2008

"4. The question for consideration is, as to whether the appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The proceeding in question is one arising out of Contempt of Courts Act. In these proceedings there is no other matter decided or dealt with which can be said to fall outside the purview of the Contempt of Courts Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the present appeal is not maintainable. Three other Division Benches of this Court have also taken the same view, and they are reported in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association (1991) 2 L.W. 29; K. Karthikeyan v. The State Bank of Mysore L.P.A. No. 112 of 1995 dated 6.4.1995 and T. Marappan v. The Executive Engineer (1996) 2 I.W. 117 in the last cited decision, one of us was a party to the Division Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document

S. Arumuganainar Senior Manager ... vs Jeenath Roadways, Represented By Its ... on 24 August, 2005

"We are in entire agreement with the above view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Anr. (C.A.No.5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No.123 of 1990). Inasmuch as by the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has declared that the first respondent is entitled to quarry sand in the area in question for a period of 3 months and directed respondents 2 to 4 to permit the first respondent, to quarry sand for a period of 3 months from 1.5.1993. we are inclined to hold that such an order is a 'Judgment' for the purpose of clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that the order under appeal satisfies the conditions prescribed in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 27 - P K Misra - Full Document

S. Arumuganainar vs M/S. Jeenath Roadways on 24 August, 2005

 We are in entire agreement with the above view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla V. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another (C.A.No.5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No.123 of 1990). Inasmuch as by the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has declared that the first respondent is entitled to quarry sand in the area in question for a period of 3= months and directed respondents 2 to 4 to permit the first respondent, to quarry sand for a period of 3= months from 1.5.1993.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - P K Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next