Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Nanjappan, Thirumoorthy, Moorthy, ... vs The Sub Inspector Of Police ... on 9 July, 2002

Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005

36. Apart from the above, we are also of the opinion that the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches as it was filed very belatedly. As already noted above, in this case, the impugned appointment order appointing the appellant was passed on 16.07.20 02, whereas the writ petition was filed on 18.10.2004 i.e., after a lapse of more than 2 years and 3 months. It is well settled that writ is a discretionary remedy, vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 Writ LR 47 and Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Sipali Drugs vs The Authorised Officer on 28 September, 2016

46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan v. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 WLR 47; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (3) SC 20; The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division - IV) Ltd. Dindigul v. Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639; Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134; etc. To obtain a writ the petitioner must not only show that the law is in his favour, he must also show that equity is in his favour. In these cases even assuming that there is some technical violation of law, there is no equity in the petitioners' favour. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 in these cases in favour of the petitioners who have been informed by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for some of the banks that about Rs.1,34,000 Crore of bank loans are outstanding in India and have not been repaid. In many cases, there have been interim orders of various Courts which have stayed the recoveries. Many of such interim orders were wholly unjustified, and passed only by adopting an over liberal approach. Unless repayment of the loan is done the bank or financial institution cannot grant a fresh loan, and hence new industries cannot be set up. Thus, by staying such recoveries incalculable harm has been done, and will continue to be done, to the economy, because persons who are genuinely in need of loans for setting up new industries cannot get such loans because the borrowers have not repaid them. This court should certainly not countenance such grave malpractices."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S.Ratna Stores (P) Ltd vs The Chief Manager on 12 July, 2017

"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan v. The District Collector, Coimbatore reported in 2005 WLR 47; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 20; The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul v. P.Ellappan reported in 2005 (1) MLJ 639; Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

T.P.Subramaniam vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 19 August, 2015

6. It is clear that there could be no vested right in the petitioner to make a demand that the Sub Registrar Office ought to be constructed only at Sungakaranpalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District, even though he has gifted a portion of his lands in favour of the respondent department, for the construction of the said building. The decision of the Supreme Court, in J.R.Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (1988) 4 SCC 364 and the decision of the Division Bench in R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 Writ L.R. 47, confirms the said view.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document
1