citedby: 1633093

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)

Documents citing A.Manonmani vs A.Sivasubramanian on 22 July, 2004

N.Chockalingam … vs Indian Bank

Further relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Manonmani vs. A.Sivasubramanian reported in 2004 (5) CTC 487, he would submit that the Court had revoked the grant of probate, which had been granted without following the mandatory provisions under Order XXXII CPC.

Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

I.Jasmine Varma vs Malini Dewan on 19 June, 2019

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in A.Manonmani vs A.Sivasubramanian 2004 4 LW 131. Paragraphs No.12.3 to 13 read as follows:-

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Manohari vs Sugunathalakshmi on 21 January, 2020

18. A Division Bench of this Court in the Judgement of A.Manonmani Vs. A.Sivasubramanian – 2004-(4)-L.W.131 helds as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

P.T. Dhanalakshmi vs A. Murugesan on 19 April, 2011

In A. Manonmani vs A. Sivasubramanian, 2004 (5) CTC 487, a Division Bench of this Court has held that "if the court is satisfied that the defendant is either a minor or a person of unsound mind or a person incapable of protecting his or her interest when suing or being sued, a further duty is cast on the court itself to decided who could be a proper person to be appointed as a guardian ad litum for an effective representation of the case on behalf of the minor or a person of unsound mind".

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

N.Chockalingam … vs Indian Bank

I.Jasmine Varma vs Malini Dewan on 19 June, 2019

Manohari vs Sugunathalakshmi on 21 January, 2020

P.T. Dhanalakshmi vs A. Murugesan on 19 April, 2011