Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing K.P. Nataranjan vs Muthalammal on 16 July, 2021

Sandhiya Rani vs Ashanmugam on 30 October, 2023

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the entire case on hand and taking note of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors.](16.07.2021 - SC) 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.1873 and 1932 of 2023 & C.M.P.Nos.11988 and 12255 of 2023 reported in MANU/SC/0452/2021 as mentioned supra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the Judgment of this Court, wherein an ex- parte decree passed against a minor not represented by a guardian who is duly appointed is a nullity, this Court, holds that the objection for the decree, shall be considered by the Execution Court, therefore, the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai in REA No.27 of 2015 in REP No.23 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2004 is set aside and the EP Court shall consider with reference to the alternative prayer of return of amount granted in O.S.No.66 of 2004, with regard to the sale deed and pass appropriate orders by holding enquiry. Till the orders are passed in REA No.27 of 2015, the order dated 30.03.2023 passed in Execution petition [filed by the respondent] shall be kept in abeyance and shall be decided subject to the outcome of REA No.27 of 2015.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Valluvar Kuzhumam Private Limited vs Apc Drilling & Construction Private ... on 30 November, 2022

Even if the order of rejection is a decree in the line of proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P.Natarajan's case (cited supra), I feel there is no fundamental wrong on the part of the petitioner to file a petition under Article 227 Constitution of India instead of filing an appeal. In this regard, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant part of the judgment of K.P. Natarajan (cited supra) which reads as under:
Madras High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - R N Manjula - Full Document

Prema Maxi vs Tresa Xavier on 28 February, 2022

As seen from the facts of K.P.Natarajan's case, the decree was an ex parte decree and there was no contest on the side of the other parties arrayed. In such circumstances, there was no difficulty to hold that decree is ipso facto nullity. On the other hand various precedents would go to show R.P. Nos. 392/2016 & 667/2016 in R.F.A. No. 240 of 2003 -:16:- that when the minor's interest has been substantially represented, no prejudice would occur to the minor on account of irregularity in the proceedings due to non appointment of guardian by a formal order by the Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

D.Harish vs Champalatha on 28 April, 2023

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

D.Harish vs Champalatha on 28 April, 2023

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

D.Harish vs Champalatha on 28 April, 2023

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Comer.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next