Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop In ... vs D. Sahayadoss And 2 Ors. on 8 February, 2002

M/S. Shanmugam Foundation Pvt. Ltd vs Smt. Sivakalai on 2 August, 2012

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, in my considered opinion, the impugned order granted by the Court below, without assigning any reasons, is contrary to the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and therefore, it is liable to set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2012 made in I.A. No: 365 of 2012 in O.S. No: 160 of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore, is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration. The Trial Court is directed to take up the interlocutory application afresh for consideration, hear both the parties and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

E. Satheesh Kumar vs Vijaya Bank, P. Sampath Kumar, ... on 28 February, 2003

In Dr. DEVASAHYAM, V. Rt. Rev. vs. D. SAHAYADOSS, reported in 2002 (1)CTC 458, after referring to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, I have held that "It is clear that error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court can be set aside by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. I am of the view that in order to do justice between the parties, this Court can interfere by exercising the revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution." The impugned order which is bereft of reason and laconic cannot stand a moment's scrutiny.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

S.T. Sundaram vs Veerateswaran, The Chairman, ... on 2 December, 2002

Useful reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of RT.REV DR. V. DEVASAHAYAM, BISHOP IN MADRAS CSI AND ANOTHER VS. D. SAHAYADOSS reported in 2002 (1) LAW WEEKLY 672. Hence, I am of the view that the interim order passed is in violation of the mandatory provisions, without recording any reasons for granting such an interim order and the action of the petitioner in moving the Civil Court is a blatant abuse of process of Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and it is imminently satisfy the parameters for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002

Useful reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of RT.REV DR. V.DEVASAHAYAM, BISHOP IN MADRAS CSI AND ANOTHER VS. D.SAHAYADOSS reported in 2002 (1) LAW WEEKLY 672. Hence, I am of the view that the interim order passed is in violation of the mandatory provisions, without recording any reasons for granting such an interim order and the action of the petitioner in moving the Civil Court is a blatant abuse of process of Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and it is imminently satisfy the parameters for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Shanita Holdings Sdn vs Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited on 13 February, 2009

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the order of the trial Court dated 11.06.2008 passed in I.A.8812/08 is a non speaking one and that the requirements of law have not been satisfied by the trial Court while issuing the order of ad interim injunction and therefore, this Court can exercise its revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the same to promote substantial cause of justice and in this regard, he cites the decision of this Court RT REV DR.V.DEVASAHYAM, BISHOP IN MADRAS AND ANOTHER V. D.SAHAYADOSS AND 2 OTHERS, 2002 (1) CTC 458, whereby and whereunder it is inter alia observed that 'when trial Court granted ex parte order of injunction without complying with mandatory provision to record reasons for granting such injunction High Court can exercise revisional powers under Article 227 of Constitution and set aside such orders.'
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 6 - M Venugopal - Full Document

N.Lakshmana Doss vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 7 January, 2009

20.The substance of contention of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 is that the trial Court has granted ad-interim injunction without recording proper reasons thereto and therefore, this Court can exercise its revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the orders of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.13528 of 2008 in O.S.No.5602 of 2008 to prevent aberration of justice. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision in Rt.Rev. Dr.V. Devasahyam, Bishop in Madras CSI and another V. D.Sahayadoss and others 2002 (1) CTC 458 wherein this Court has inter alia held that 'grant of exparte injunction is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and further that the trial Court passing exparte order of injunction without recording reasons as mandated by law is untenable etc.'
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 Next