Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (1.98 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam vs K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar on 9 May, 1963

State Bank Of India vs Madhumita Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. And ... on 16 July, 2002

In Athmanathaswami Devasthanam (supra), the Apex Court had held where the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide question of jurisdiction and return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court if it comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the preliminary duty of this Court is first to decide whether it has Jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 12 - D K Seth - Full Document

M/S Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 7 February, 2020

45. As noted earlier, it is also the grievance of the Appellant that the State Commission having concluded that the Appellant was a consumer and not a deemed distribution licensee it should not have returned any finding on issues other than that of maintainability. Reliance in this context is placed on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sri Athamanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, (1964) 3 SCR 763; Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Paswan and Others (1955) 1 SCR 117 and Balvant N. Viswamitra and Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) Through Lrs. And Others, (2004) 8 SCC 706.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Guruchand Vaid vs Collector Of Nilgiris District & on 30 June, 2023

Therefore, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar 1963 (3) SCR 763, which was delivered in the context of the permanent lease right of occupancy of a ryot regarding waste lands brought under cultivation, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, also does not apply _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 48 of 88 W.P.No.9378 of 2013 to the facts of the case on hand. Further more, as has already been held supra, the Hill Areas Act has been made applicable to Nilgiris District long after the impugned notification, by G.O.Ms.No.1225, dated 1.12.1985.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

M.Guruchand Vaid vs Collector Of Nilgiris District & on 30 June, 2023

But, in the case on hand, nowhere in the Hill Act it has been mentioned that it is in supercession of any of the Acts in existence particularly, Act XXVII of 1949. Therefore, the Hill Act would be an Act in addition but not in derogation or in supercession or in exclusion of Act XXVII of 1949, so as to say that the Hill Act, being a Special Act, would have overriding effect on a general Act like Act XXVII of 1949. Therefore, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar 1963 (3) SCR 763, which was delivered in the context of the permanent lease right of occupancy of a ryot regarding waste lands brought under cultivation, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, also does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. Further more, as has already been held supra, the Hill Areas Act has been made applicable to Nilgiris District long after the impugned notification, by G.O.Ms.No.1225, dated 1.12.1985.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

M.Guruchand Vaid vs Collector Of Nilgiris District & on 30 June, 2023

Therefore, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar 1963 (3) SCR 763, which was delivered in the context of the permanent lease right of occupancy of a ryot regarding waste lands brought under cultivation, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, also does not apply _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 48 of 88 W.P.No.9378 of 2013 to the facts of the case on hand. Further more, as has already been held supra, the Hill Areas Act has been made applicable to Nilgiris District long after the impugned notification, by G.O.Ms.No.1225, dated 1.12.1985.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 October, 1998

87. With respect, we are unable to appreciate how the above observations can be pressed in service in the instant case. If we are entering into merits of the matter, the above decision would indeed help the appellants. But we are not at all entering into merits or expressing any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties. We are merely considering the alternative argument that even if appeals are maintainable, whether the learned single Judge was right in not entertaining the petitions and in holding that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. We refrain from making any observation on correctness or otherwise of the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 13 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next