Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing N. Ramasamy, R. Shanmugham, V.R. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its ... on 9 August, 2002

Memo Of Parties vs Land & Development Officer on 23 December, 2015

8. His testimony does not prove anything to show that he is entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. To start with, there is no evidence, or for that matter any plea, that the plaintiff ever applied for any compensation to defendant no. 1. There is no denying the fact that the defendant no. 1 acquired certain portion of the property belonging to the father of the plaintiff and he, being one of the legal heirs after the demise of his father, must be recompensed by defendant no. 1 for loss suffered. He is certainly entitled to get his share of the compensation from the defendant no. 1. But it seems that the plaintiff desires to secure the compensation without asking for it from the concerned authority, i.e. defendant no. 1 and without fulfilling the legal Suit no. 366/14 K.N. Dawar Vs. Land and Development office 6/12 requirements for award of compensation. Indeed, there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 in that he has never applied for compensation and defendant no. 1 has never denied his right to receive the same. The plaintiff would have done well to first approach defendant no. 1 before coming to the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.V.Betarajan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 April, 2019

Consequently, it is directed that the Member Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board, in the Office of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Service, Chennai, must consider the case of the third writ petitioner in W.P.No.12817 of 2010, M.Rajendran, No.1C7, Haathoon, Residency, Pattamangalam Street, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001, and the first and sixth writ petitioners in W.P.No.23109 of 2012, namely, P.S.Ganesan, 22/6, Vinayagar Koil Street, Shastri Nagar, West Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015, and Killivalavan, TVN, Main Road, Pandur and Post, Via Kalamaruthur, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District, in proper perspective keeping in mind that they are educationally qualified to be appointed as Pharmacists and if age was the sole criteria on which they cannot be considered, then suitably, as a one time measure, relax the age, http://www.judis.nic.in 15/17 Order dt: 27.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.12817/2010 & 23109/2012 [R.V.Betarajan V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu] and also take other factors into consideration, particularly, that they have registered themselves with the Employment Exchanges of the respective Districts and have been awaiting appointment for a considerable number of years, and then pass appropriate and suitable orders.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

R.Nagarajan vs The Managing Director on 23 September, 2020

4. In this context, it is the claim of the petitioner that, atleast a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- have to be paid to the petitioner by way of commutation of pension on the basis of the revised pay based on the wage settlement. However, the same, since has not been made and the said additional commutation, since has not been paid to the petitioner, he has given a representation on 07.09.2020 and the said representation also since has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.12401 of 2020 R.Nagarajan v. The Managing Director, TNSTC
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

Unknown vs Dated : 22.7.2009 on 22 July, 2009

51. Likewise, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by Mr.R.Thiagarajan in Rangasamy,K. v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (2) CTC 81 also has no application, since that was a case where an allottee of the Housing Board on lease-cum-sale agreement was held to be not an owner since the sale takes place only after the final installment and execution and registration of sale deed.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Kumar vs S.Mallika

26. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant unlawfully trespassed into the suit property/flat without any valid right and causing hardship and sufferings to the plaintiff. But it is the case of the appellant/defendant that he was a tenant under his sister Sundari Chandran till she executed settlement deed dated 07.12.2011 in his favour and from the date of settlement deed, he is the owner of the suit property, hence, the respondent/plaintiff cannot sought for vacant possession, permanent injunction and damages. If this contention of the defendant that he is not a trespasser and is a tenant under Sundari Chandran is true, he ought to have filed a suit for injunction seeking 'not to evict him without due process of law'. But the defendant did not do so, till now. Apart from that, even after the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiff or after filing of this suit in the year 2011, the said Page 26 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 Sundari Chandran who alleged to have an ostensible owner of the suit property, has not filed any suit against Mallika-plaintiff/respondent or against the vendors of the plaintiff for injunction not to disturb/interfere with her possession. That apart, since the sale deed in favour of Sundari Chandran and subsequent settlement deed in favour of appellant/ defendant are mainly based on the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979, they cannot be acted upon as the suit filed by Sundari Chandran for specific performance on the basis of alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 was dismissed. Even if it is assumed to be an Agreement to Sell, the same cannot be considered as Sale of Property, as per the law laid down by this Court in (2005) 2 CTC 81 (K.Rangasamy and another ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Housing Board), wherein it is held that “Immovable property can be sold only by a registered sale deed and not by a mere allotment order; Lease cum Sale Agreement is only a lease agreement till final instalment is paid and lease cum sale agreement will not amount to sale of property; Sale takes place only after payment of final instalment and execution and registration of sale deed.” Hence, the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 cannot be considered as a Page 27 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 sale and the said Sundari Chandran cannot be considered as a owner. Therefore, this Court holds that the defendant is not a tenant under the said Sundari Chandran at the time of filing the suit itself. Even now, the defendant is not a tenant in the suit property, as the suit filed by his sister for specific performance was dismissed for default as early as on 18.01.2017 and the restoration petition filed by her was also dismissed on merit. Further, on 18.11.2019 the Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside the exparte order was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.02.2021. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant/defendant, who has no right whatsoever in the suit property, is a trespasser into the suit property.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010

19. The other judgment in Shanmugham Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trasnport Corporation reported in 2006(5) CTC 269, this Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal refusing to take into account the medical bills without being supported by doctor's evidence. This Court held that the procedure contemplated is a summary procedure while deciding the accident claims.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

V.Sundaravel vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 26 April, 2021

9.An employee of a Co-operative Society has a right to file revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, before the first respondent, challenging the order passed adverse to him. As per proviso to Section 153(1) of the Act, the revision has to be filed within 90 days. The issue whether the time limit fixed is mandatory or directory, came up for consideration before this Court in N.P.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8460 of 2021 2012 (4) CTC 257, which was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court held that the time limit fixed is only directory and not mandatory. At the same time, this Court held that revision has to be filed within a reasonable time and what is the reasonable time can be decided only based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 08.03.2019 and the order of dismissal was received on 01.04.2019 and the petitioner filed revision on 13.01.2021, after one year and 10 months of the order of dismissal.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Chandra Kumar vs S.Mallika

26. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant unlawfully trespassed into the suit property/flat without any valid right and causing hardship and sufferings to the plaintiff. But it is the case of the appellant/defendant that he was a tenant under his sister Sundari Chandran till she executed settlement deed dated 07.12.2011 in his favour and from the date of settlement deed, he is the owner of the suit property, hence, the respondent/plaintiff cannot sought for vacant possession, permanent injunction and damages. If this contention of the defendant that he is not a trespasser and is a tenant under Sundari Chandran is true, he ought to have filed a suit for injunction seeking 'not to evict him without due process of law'. But the defendant did not do so, till now. Apart from that, even after the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiff or after filing of this suit in the year 2011, the said Page 26 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 Sundari Chandran who alleged to have an ostensible owner of the suit property, has not filed any suit against Mallika-plaintiff/respondent or against the vendors of the plaintiff for injunction not to disturb/interfere with her possession. That apart, since the sale deed in favour of Sundari Chandran and subsequent settlement deed in favour of appellant/ defendant are mainly based on the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979, they cannot be acted upon as the suit filed by Sundari Chandran for specific performance on the basis of alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 was dismissed. Even if it is assumed to be an Agreement to Sell, the same cannot be considered as Sale of Property, as per the law laid down by this Court in (2005) 2 CTC 81 (K.Rangasamy and another ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Housing Board), wherein it is held that “Immovable property can be sold only by a registered sale deed and not by a mere allotment order; Lease cum Sale Agreement is only a lease agreement till final instalment is paid and lease cum sale agreement will not amount to sale of property; Sale takes place only after payment of final instalment and execution and registration of sale deed.” Hence, the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 cannot be considered as a Page 27 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 sale and the said Sundari Chandran cannot be considered as a owner. Therefore, this Court holds that the defendant is not a tenant under the said Sundari Chandran at the time of filing the suit itself. Even now, the defendant is not a tenant in the suit property, as the suit filed by his sister for specific performance was dismissed for default as early as on 18.01.2017 and the restoration petition filed by her was also dismissed on merit. Further, on 18.11.2019 the Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside the exparte order was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.02.2021. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant/defendant, who has no right whatsoever in the suit property, is a trespasser into the suit property.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Kumar vs S.Mallika

26. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant unlawfully trespassed into the suit property/flat without any valid right and causing hardship and sufferings to the plaintiff. But it is the case of the appellant/defendant that he was a tenant under his sister Sundari Chandran till she executed settlement deed dated 07.12.2011 in his favour and from the date of settlement deed, he is the owner of the suit property, hence, the respondent/plaintiff cannot sought for vacant possession, permanent injunction and damages. If this contention of the defendant that he is not a trespasser and is a tenant under Sundari Chandran is true, he ought to have filed a suit for injunction seeking 'not to evict him without due process of law'. But the defendant did not do so, till now. Apart from that, even after the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiff or after filing of this suit in the year 2011, the said Page 26 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 Sundari Chandran who alleged to have an ostensible owner of the suit property, has not filed any suit against Mallika-plaintiff/respondent or against the vendors of the plaintiff for injunction not to disturb/interfere with her possession. That apart, since the sale deed in favour of Sundari Chandran and subsequent settlement deed in favour of appellant/ defendant are mainly based on the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979, they cannot be acted upon as the suit filed by Sundari Chandran for specific performance on the basis of alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 was dismissed. Even if it is assumed to be an Agreement to Sell, the same cannot be considered as Sale of Property, as per the law laid down by this Court in (2005) 2 CTC 81 (K.Rangasamy and another ..vs.. Tamil Nadu Housing Board), wherein it is held that “Immovable property can be sold only by a registered sale deed and not by a mere allotment order; Lease cum Sale Agreement is only a lease agreement till final instalment is paid and lease cum sale agreement will not amount to sale of property; Sale takes place only after payment of final instalment and execution and registration of sale deed.” Hence, the alleged 'Agreement to Sell' dated 30.05.1979 cannot be considered as a Page 27 / 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.268 of 2016 sale and the said Sundari Chandran cannot be considered as a owner. Therefore, this Court holds that the defendant is not a tenant under the said Sundari Chandran at the time of filing the suit itself. Even now, the defendant is not a tenant in the suit property, as the suit filed by his sister for specific performance was dismissed for default as early as on 18.01.2017 and the restoration petition filed by her was also dismissed on merit. Further, on 18.11.2019 the Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside the exparte order was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.02.2021. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant/defendant, who has no right whatsoever in the suit property, is a trespasser into the suit property.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next