Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Amaravathy Cranes And Structural Pvt. ... vs Rajendra Raja .. R1 In on 18 February, 2013

N.A.Chinnasamy vs S.Vellingirinathan on 9 October, 2013

In Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd., v. Rajendra Raja, reported in 2013 (2) CTC 756, this Court (K.CHANDRU, J) has held that while deciding the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, for rejecting the plaint, the trial Court will be in a position to decide whether the plaint should be rejected at the threshold without trial. In the event of the rejection of the plaint, the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is extraordinary and it is the supervisory jurisdiction and by exercising the power of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 32 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Saravana Selvarathinam Retail Pvt. Ltd vs Zeenath on 29 January, 2018

(ii) Judgment of this Court in AMARAVATHY CRANES AND STRUCTURAL PVT. LTD., & ANOTHER VS. RAJENDRA RAJA AND OTHERS [2013 (2) CTC 756] " 14. ..... this court is not inclined to entertain the revision petitions for more than one reason. In this case, the revision petitioner has remedy by way of filing of an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaints. It is only when such an application is filed, the trial Munsif will be in a position to decide whether the plaints should be rejected at the threshold without trial. In the event of the rejection of the plaint, the aggrieved party has right to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is extraordinary and it is supervisory jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document

K.V.Ponnusamy vs Marakutty

(ii)Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd & another Vs. Rajendra Raja and others [2013 (2) CTC 756] There are enabling provisions in Civil Procedure Code under Order 6 Rule 16 for striking off Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaint. When the petitioners have an alternate remedy to approach the Civil Court, they cannot approach this Court straight away by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

M/S.Atc Telecom Infrastructure ... vs R.Muthukrishnan on 6 November, 2019

11.He would further submit that, insofar as the Judgment quoted by the petitioner's side, as well as the plea of rejection of plaint is concerned, contra to the said view taken in the said Division Bench Judgment as well as the stand of the revision petitioner, there are atleast five judgments of this Court viz., (i) 2013(2) CTC 756 (Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd. and another V. Rajendra Raja and others); (ii) (2015) 3 CTC 485 (T.K.Chithran V. C.Samsari @ Chithran and others); (iii) W.P.No.21979 and 14877 of 2017 (Indus Towers Limited and others V. The Secretary to Government, Municipal 7/17 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2105 & 2106 of 2019 Administration Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 and others); (iv) W.P.(MD0.No.6440 of 2019 (S.S.Nagar Kudiyuryppor Nala Sangam, rep. by its President K.Jeyaram, Sivagangai District V. The District Collector, Collectorate, Singampuneri, Sivagangai District and others); (v) W.P.No.5862 of 2019 (K.Latha and others V. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administrative Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 and others).
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R S Kumar - Full Document
1