Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... vs Suhura Beevi Educational Trust And ... on 20 January, 1994

Subburayan vs Kannu Udayar on 29 November, 2024

7. On perusal of the records and the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in 1994-1-L.W-235 in the case of The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust, it is evident that the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University filed Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. After filing of the Suit, the Plaintiff had withdrawn the Suit against the University and obtained decree declaring that the Plaintiff/Trust was a Muslim Religious Minority Trust and the College would come within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. A consequential permanent injunction was also granted restraining the Defendants from applying certain Provisions of the Act. The third Defendant being the University was exonerated by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Suit was dismissed against the University without the knowledge of the University and direction 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 04:21:30 pm ) CRP.No.363 of 2020 was issued against the University. The University has preferred the Revision before this Court claiming that fraud had been played upon the Court and by abusing the process of Court the Plaintiff obtained decree against the University. This Court condemned the learned trial Judge who had passed the decree after the University was exonerated. It was also held that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court by the Counsel before the trial Court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

A.G.Sekaran vs M/S.Essaargee Fibro Industries on 3 February, 2017

In the light of the above discussions and following the decision reported in AIR 1995 MADRAS 42 (Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University V. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust and others), the plaintiff suit is not maintainable by unilaterally giving up his claim against the first defendant partnership firm without due notice and also without effecting consequential amendment of pleadings and therefore, the suit laid by the plaintiff is bad for mis joinder of necessary party. Further it is found that even if the plaintiff has given up his claim as against the first defendant partnership firm, inasmuch as the plaintiff has laid the suit based upon the letter of promise dated 01.04.2002 alleged to have been issued by the first defendant partnership firm and as the defendants 2 & 3 are not personally liable under the above said letter of promise, it could be see that the suit laid by the plaintiff is hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Smt. Abha Arora vs Angela Sharma And Anr. on 18 May, 2007

15. A reference was also made to the judgment of learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Registrar, Manomaniam Sundaranar University v. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust and Ors. in support of the proposition that while liberty may lie with the plaintiff in a suit to withdraw or abandon at any time after the institution of the suit, the whole of the suit or part of his claim, yet it cannot be considered to be so absolute as to permit, encourage or ratify an abuse of the process of the court or a fraud to be played upon the parties as well as the court. The abandonment ought not to be a ruse to get rid of a party but yet get the same relief as prayed for earlier.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 11 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Instituto Hispania vs Mrs.Vinolia Lobo on 4 August, 2009

15.The learned Senior Counsel in support of her second contention placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust and others reported in AIR 1995 MADRAS 42 for the purpose of contending that though liberty may lie on the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at any time or abandon at any time after the institution of the suit, either the whole suit or part of his claim, yet that cannot be considered as absolute as to permit or encourage or ratify an abuse of process of court. If such withdrawal was done to the detriment of the legitimate right of the party defendant behind his back and with ulterior motive and oblique purpose, the courts are not powerless to prevent such onslaught on the institute of administration of justice. It is not clear as to how this judgment has any relevance to the facts of the present case. In that case, two suits were filed by the same plaintiff and in one suit, the contesting party was given up without notice so as to have the second suit deciding ex parte. It is in this context, the court came down heavily upon the plaintiff as the plaintiff was clearly abuse the process of court by giving up the parties in order to taking advantage of an ex parte decree.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 Next