Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing K.Saraswathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 July, 2008

Ambrish Ashok Pathak vs The Tamilnadu Housing Board on 4 February, 2015

12. The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu. By a judgment dated 16.6.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board not to transfer the allotments under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

S.Ramanathan vs The Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 16 November, 2018

12. The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. By a judgmet dated 16.06.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board not to transfer the allotments under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

B.Chitra vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2018

12. The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. By a judgmet dated 16.06.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board not to transfer the allotments under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a http://www.judis.nic.in 7 decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Aparna vs The Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 July, 2019

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra, since the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 16.6.2010 in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in the case of K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, has held that the legal heirs are not entitled for transfer of leasehold rights. The relevant paragraph would run thus :-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

G.Ravikumar vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 July, 2019

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra, since the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 16.6.2010 in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in the case of K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, has held that the legal heirs are not entitled for transfer of leasehold rights. The relevant paragraph would run thus :-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

N. Balasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 September, 2016

12.The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1443/2008 in K.Saraswathi V. The State of Tamil Nadu. By a judgment dated 16.06.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board not to transfer the allotments under the Public Rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

S.Dharani Dharan vs Executive Engineer & on 7 November, 2016

12. The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu. By a judgment dated 16.6.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board 5 not to transfer the allotments under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Anbu Murugan vs Executive Engineer & on 7 November, 2016

12. The Board had already admittedly taken a decision in 1997 not to transfer allotments in favour of the legal heirs. The said resolution was not under challenge. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Housing Board came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1443 of 2008 in K.Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu. By a judgment dated 16.6.2010, the Division Bench held that the decision of the Housing Board 5 not to transfer the allotments under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. Paragraph 13 may be usefully quoted as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document
1