Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Karur Ghee Stores Rep. By V. Periasamy vs N. Palaniappan And Another on 27 April, 2001

Mr.N.N.Gafoor vs Mr.R.Srikumaran

“…........ From the above decision, it is clear that even if there is any lack of pleadings, if the parties understood the case and have adduced evidence, application is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of lack of pleadings, or vague pleadings. In this case, tenant volunteered and out a contention that if he is liable to be evicted, he will be put to greater hardship than the landlord and, therefore, he wanted the Petition to be dismissed. For the said purpose, he gave evidence that he has invested huge amounts in the business and how far he will be put to great hardship is a matter which has to be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Mr.N.N.Gafoor vs Mr.R.Srikumaran

“…........ From the above decision, it is clear that even if there is any lack of pleadings, if the parties understood the case and have adduced evidence, application is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of lack of pleadings, or vague pleadings. In this case, tenant volunteered and out a contention that if he is liable to be evicted, he will be put to greater hardship than the landlord and, therefore, he wanted the Petition to be dismissed. For the said purpose, he gave evidence that he has invested huge amounts in the business and how far he will be put to great hardship is a matter which has to be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Mr.N.N.Gafoor vs Mr.R.Srikumaran

“…........ From the above decision, it is clear that even if there is any lack of pleadings, if the parties understood the case and have adduced evidence, application is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of lack of pleadings, or vague pleadings. In this case, tenant volunteered and out a contention that if he is liable to be evicted, he will be put to greater hardship than the landlord and, therefore, he wanted the Petition to be dismissed. For the said purpose, he gave evidence that he has invested huge amounts in the business and how far he will be put to great hardship is a matter which has to be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

K.Muthuramalingam vs Kalyani Ragunathan on 10 April, 2007

19.The above principles have been laid down in the following judgments which are referred above: They are 1996(1)CTC 681(Rengaiyan, N. v. A.M.Noorullah) 2001(1)M.L.J.110(Hatim and Co. v. Radhakrishnan) 1999 MLJ 93(C.Prasad Rao v. C.Narasimhan) 1998 MLJ 270(M/s.Boston v. Akbar) 2000 MLJ 19(Karur Ghee Stores rep., by V.Periasamy vs. M.Palaniappan & another) 2001(3) CTC 206(Karur Ghee Stores v. N.Palaniappan) 1999 M.L.J.(Supp.)
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

C.Dejvadhasan vs Rajakumar on 20 April, 2010

23.Further, in the judgment reported in 2001(3) CTC 206, in the case of Karur Ghee Stores rep. by V.Periasamy vs. N.Palaniappan and another, the learned Judge has considered the scope of lack of pleadings about the relative hardship and relied upon the judgment reported in 2000(3) LW 482 in the case of N.Dakshinamoorthy v. Alaphose Celestine Kamala Benjamine and held that even if there is any lack of pleadings, if the parties understood the case and have adduced evidence, application is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of lack of pleadings, or vague pleadings.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

K.M. Ranganathan vs S. Sankaralingam on 3 April, 2002

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the recent decision of this High Court reported in KARUR GHEE STROES Vs. N.PALANIAPPAN (2001 (3) CTC 206). In the above decision, the Court on consideration of the other decisions has held that in all the cases it was found on facts that there was no strucutural unity in the building that was in the occupation of the landlord and the building that was in the occupation of the tenant and that in this case, two shops are part of one building which is divided by a wall. The facts of the above case will also show that the landlord was carrying on business at No.67, which is adjacent to the petition premises. The question whether the landlord require the premises in occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation and the question whether the premises in occupation of the tenant is part and parcel of the same building would depend upon the structural unity of a particular building . It is no doubt true that the mere fact that two buildings are separated by a wall will not play any vital role in deciding the crucial question.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M. Kothandapani vs Dhanammal on 20 February, 2004

13. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits, that the revisional authority cannot independently reappreciate the evidence and in this view, concurrent finding could not be disturbed, seeking aid from Karur Ghee Stores v. N. Palaniappan (2001 3 CTC 206). In this case itself, this Court had observed that revisional court could interfere with the concurrent finding, provided there is misapplication of law or legally wrong approach or grave and substantial injustice had been done.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1