Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy ... vs Kasthuriammal on 7 April, 2006

P.Jeyalakshmi vs The Commissioner on 7 February, 2020

23. Finally, Mr M.N. Krishnamani, placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No. 2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal [(2006) 2 CTC 452 (Mad)] submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

V.Babu vs The Commissioner on 31 March, 2008

" 11. Finally, Mr.M.N.Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No.2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal (2006 (2) CTC 452, submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

K.Krishnan vs The Commissioner on 7 February, 2020

23. Finally, Mr M.N. Krishnamani, placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No. 2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy 17/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.16264 of 2018 Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal [(2006) 2 CTC 452 (Mad)] submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

K.Krishnan vs The Commissioner on 7 February, 2020

23. Finally, Mr M.N. Krishnamani, placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No. 2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy 17/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.16263 of 2018 Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal [(2006) 2 CTC 452 (Mad)] submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

V.Babu vs The Commissioner on 29 April, 2008

"11. Finally, Mr.M.N.Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No.2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal (2006 (2) CTC 452), submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Super Goods Films Private Limited vs Page 1 Of 32 on 20 March, 2024

14. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel relied on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam Vs. Kasthuriammal reported in MANU/TN/8789/2006. In the said judgment, the Full Bench considered the issues regarding the scope of Amendment Act No.2 of 1996 in the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The reference was answered as follows in paragraph 50:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission on 6 December, 2007

11) Finally, Mr. M.N.Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP(NPD) 2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9 (3) (a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9 (3)
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 435 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

C.S.Periyardasan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008

It cannot also be said that notifying the same by the Government is only a ministerial act and the reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Full Bench judgement under the City Tenants Protection Act in CRP.No.2758 of 1996 reported in Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam by Fit Person, Madras vs. Kasthuriammal [2006 (2) MLJ 281 (F.B.)] is not tenable for more than one reason that under the provisions of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act,1921, when the Court fixes the price of property and the amount is deposited by the tenant, the proceedings are held to be concluded since the subsequent orders directing the landlord to execute sale deed or on failure of the landlord, Court executing the sale deed are only consequential.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Sri Bashyakara Adichenna ... vs Smt.N.Padmavathi (Deceased) on 7 November, 2017

11) Finally, Mr. M.N.Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court rendered in CRP(NPD) 2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9 (3) (a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9 (3)
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document
1   2 Next