Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum vs M. Sainaba And Ors. on 7 August, 1989

D.L. Walton vs Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. And Ors. on 31 May, 1994

Collector, 1983 Ker LT 328 : (AIR 1983 Kerala 10), Saina v. Kanderi 1984 Ker LT 428 : (AIR 1984 Kerala 170), Godavari Bai v. Cannanore Municipality, 1984 Ker LT 1103 : (AIR 1985 Kerala 2) and Secretary, K.S.E.B. v. Sainaba (1989) 2 Ker LT 373 : (AIR 1990 Kerala 50) to point out that a suit could be maintained by a citizen complaining of violation of a statute by another citizen even if he is not personally affected by the act of the defendant. In the light of the principles noticed by this court in the decisions referred to above, it is not possible to accept the argument raised on behalf of the plaintiff (defendant?) that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not suffered any legal injury which can be redressed in a court of law.
Kerala High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

C.P. Radhakrishnan vs Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. And Ors. on 31 May, 1993

The plaintiff has laid this suit on the ground that the plaintiff was the only recognised stock exchange entitled to carry on business in securities and that any rival is precluded from carrying on such business within the district of Ernakulam by virtue of the notification issued under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. There is a further contention that in the light of Section 19 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act which had been brought into force in the area in question, the activity by the first defendant would be in violation of the statute and that anyone can sue for preventing the first defendant from violating the statutory prohibition. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of this court in Govinda Rao (B.) v. District Collector [1983] KLT 328, Saina v. Konderi [1984] KLT 428, Godavari Bhai v. Cannanore Municipality [1984] KLT 1103 and Secretary, K.S.E.B. v. Sainaba [1989] 2 KLT 373 to point out that a suit could be maintained by a citizen complaining of violation of a statute by another citizen even if he is not personally affected by the act of the defendant. In the light of the principles noticed by this court in the decisions referred to above, it is not possible to accept the argument raised on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not suffered any legal injury which can be redressed in a court of law.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Qari Mohammed Zakir Hussain And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 6 October, 2001

16. It is well settled that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicity expressed or clearly implied. It is also well settled that even if the jurisdiction it so excluded the Civil Courts have jurisdiction is examine into the issues where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental judicial procedure. On the other hand, a suit in a Civil Court can always be maintained to question the order of a Tribunal created by a statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the said Tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions. In other words, if the suit proceeds on the premises that the offending act has been done not in good faith, then there is no bar for such a suit. This legal position is enunciated in catena of decisions including , State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswamy Iyer & Sons, , Firm Seth Radhakishan (deceased) represented by Harikishan v. Administrative Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, , as well as decision of Kerala High Court in Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum v. M. Sainaba, .
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

M/S. Binani Zinc Fibre & Another vs Shri Pandurang Harischandra Toraskar & ... on 27 November, 1998

13. The learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in the matter of Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum v. M. Sainaba and others, has clearly observed that it is to be noted that mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in regard to certain specified matters does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. That was a suit instituted for mandatory and prohibitory injunction for directing the Board to remove two electric posts already put up in the plaintiffs property and for permanent injunction to restrain the Board from drawing up electric lines or through or across the plaintiff's property. The contention raised by the Board was that the suit was not maintainable in view of section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 56 provides that no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any public officer, or any servant of a local authority, for anything done, or in good faith purporting to be done, under the said Act and no Court shall take cognizance of an offence by the public officer except with the sanction in case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of Central Government and in any other case of the State Government. Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provides that no suit, prosecution or legal proceedings shall lie against any member or officer or any employee of the Board for anything done in good faith under the said Act. Referring to both the sections, the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court has held thus : ---
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Naresh Lachmandas Aswani vs Haridas Alias Hardas Lachmandas on 18 October, 2013

16. It is well settled that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well settled that even if the jurisdiction it so excluded the Civil Courts have jurisdiction is examine into the issues where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental judicial procedure. On the other hand, a suit in a Civil Court can always be maintained to question the order of a Tribunal created by a statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the said Tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions. In other words, if Asmita 13/47 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:31 ::: .. 14 .. Suit-808/11 the suit proceeds on the premises that the offending act has been done not in good faith, then there is no bar for such a suit. This legal position is enunciated in catena of decisions including MANU/PR/0022/1940, State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswamy Iyer & Sons, MANU/SC/0220/1966 : [1966]61ITR187(SC) , Firm Seth Radhakishan (deceased) represented by Harikishan v. Administrative Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, MANU/SC/0187/1963 : [1964]2SCR273 , as well as decision of Kerala High Court in Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum v. M. Sainaba, MANU/KE/0009/1990 : AIR1990Ker50 .
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1