Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 130 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing J.Kumaradasan Nair & Anr vs Iric Sohan & Ors on 12 February, 2009

Mahinder Kaur & Anr. vs Pamela Manmohan Singh & Ors. on 29 May, 2015

16. At this stage, reference to the factual matrix of the present case would be appropriate. The order dated 23.09.2003 of the High Court reveals that the 5 J.Kumaradasan Nair & Anr. v. IRIC Sohan & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1333 6 Consolidated Engineering (supra) 7 Consolidated Engineering (supra) CM(M) 572/2011 Page 9 of 15 execution petition pending before it had been transferred to the District Court in view of Section 2 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had been transferred to the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 10.02.2004 since the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is noteworthy that a copy of the plaint had been filed by the objector(s)/petitioners themselves to show the valuation of the suit. The learned counsel for the objectors/petitioners was also present when the order dated 10.02.2004 was passed. This would imply that the petitioners were always aware of the law, i.e., Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003 and were beneficiaries of sound legal assistance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal against the order dated 30.06.2006 was filed before the High Court upon incorrect legal advice or due to inadvertence. The High Court also granted an interim stay on 18.04.2006 in favour of the petitioners. An objection to the maintainability of the connected appeal bearing EFA No. 5/2007 was raised on 28.05.2007 wherein the learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to study the matter. The learned counsel had admitted that if EFA No. 5/2007 was not maintainable, then the connected appeal bearing EFA No. 13/2006 would also not be maintainable. This Court would notice that on 28.05.2007, when the connected appeals bearing EFA Nos. 13/2006 and 5/2007 were taken up, counsel for the petitioners (appellants therein) in both the cases were present. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that their appeal was not maintainable. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no objection apropos the maintainability of EFA No. 13/2006 was taken is without substance is untenable.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - N Waziri - Full Document

Sree Vidyani Kethan Engineering ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 May, 2020

25. As submitted by the Learned Additional Advocate general, a notification or order of an authority does not fail merely because no provision of law is mentioned. If the power to issue such a notification can be traced to any provision of law, it would be deemed to have been issued under such provision. (M.T. Khan and others Vs Government of AP ad others (2004) 2 SCC 267, State of Sikkim Vs Dorjee Tshering Bhutia 1991 CJ (SC) 590, Shahabuddin (Md) Vs State of Bihar 2010 (4) SCC 563, J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another Vs Iric Sohan and others (2009) 12 SCC 175). In the instant case, Section 7 of Act 5 of 1983 would grant such power to the Government. The issue of the G.O. cannot be faulted on that count.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

M/S. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited vs Andhra Pradesh Power Co-Ordination ... on 2 July, 2012

114. That apart, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J Kumaradasan Nair and Another v. IRAC Sohan and Ors (2009) 12 SCC 175 has held that even where the provisions of Section 14 (2) are not applicable, the Page 81 of 94 JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.128 AND 129 OF 2011 principles therein could still be held to be applicable. The relevant observations are as under:
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sri Vfijaya Ganapathi Cold Storage ... vs State Bank Of India Another on 6 December, 2018

It is further contended that, when the plaintiff/Bank lent amount to various persons, which is the public money and based on technicalities, the suit claim of the petitioner herein/plaintiff/bank cannot be dismissed and the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Union Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others2, Bhanu constructions Co. Ltd v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad3 and J. Kumaradasan Nair and another v. Iric Sohan and others4 and based on the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dismiss the civil revision 2 AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3 3 2010 (3) ALD 57 (DB) 4 (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 175 MSM,J CRP No.3708 of 2016 & batch 8 petition, as failure to implead the petitioners herein as defendants 2 to 4 by invoking Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C is purely a technical flaw and on that ground, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C cannot be dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sri Vijaya Ganapathi Cold Storage P ... vs Sbi, Rep By Its Branch Mgr, Edlapadu Br., ... on 6 December, 2018

It is further contended that, when the plaintiff/Bank lent amount to various persons, which is the public money and based on technicalities, the suit claim of the petitioner herein/plaintiff/bank cannot be dismissed and the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Union Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others2, Bhanu constructions Co. Ltd v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad3 and J. Kumaradasan Nair and another v. Iric Sohan and others4 and based on the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dismiss the civil revision 2 AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3 3 2010 (3) ALD 57 (DB) 4 (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 175 MSM,J CRP No.3708 of 2016 & batch 8 petition, as failure to implead the petitioners herein as defendants 2 to 4 by invoking Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C is purely a technical flaw and on that ground, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C cannot be dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next