Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing P.K.Palanisamy vs N.Arumugham & Anr on 23 July, 2009

Sennan vs Shoba on 29 October, 2024

2009 (9) SCC 173, was sought to be relied on by the Petitioner. But on reading the said judgment, I find that the facts therein are distinguishable as the Plaintiff therein had filed an Application under Section 148 read with Section 151 seeking time for payment of the deficit Court-fee. But, in this case, I have already pointed out that there was no such Application filed by the Petitioner at any point of time and on the other hand, an Application filed in I.A.No.354 of 2007 under Sections 148 & 151, C.P.C., was seeking for condonation of delay of 150 days in re-presenting the Plaint alone and not for seeking for permission for payment of deficit Court- fee.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Rajendran vs S.Nagarajan on 20 July, 2012

19. No doubt, a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (9) SCC 173 (P.K.Palanisamy Vs. N.Arumugham and Another) was sought to be relied on by the petitioner. But on reading the said judgment, I find that the facts therein are distinguishable as the plaintiff therein had filed an application under Section 148 read with Section 151 seeking time for payment of the deficit court fee. But, in this case, I have already pointed out that there was no such application filed by the petitioner at any point of time and on the other hand, an application filed in I.A.No.354 of 2007 under Sections 148 and 151 CPC was seeking for condonation of a delay of 150 days in re-presenting the plaint alone and not for seeking for permission for payment of deficit court fee.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - K R Baabu - Full Document

K.Dhanavelu vs K.S.M.Venugopal on 5 August, 2016

In P.K.Palanisamy vs. N.Arumugham and another reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 173, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once deficit Court Fee is paid under Section 149 of C.P.C., the same would be deemed to have been paid in the first instance and such plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (C) on the ground of limitation. More over, the payment of Court fee is between the State and suitor.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Rafeeque Ahmed vs C.Lickmichand Jain on 5 February, 2014

11.The learned counsel for the first respondent has mainly relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported, in (2009) 9 SCC 173-P.K.Palanisamy v. N.Arumugham and another. In that case, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 149 r/w.151 C.P.C for condoning the delay in re-presenting the suit papers and for payment of deficit Court fee. Those petitions were allowed by the trial Court and it was not challenged by the defendants. After filing of the written statement and commencement of the trial, the defendants filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. to strike off the plaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourbale Apex Court has held that at that stage, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. In my considered opinion, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Jsw Steel Ltd. Formerly Known As Ispat ... vs The Board Trustees Of The Mumbai Port ... on 10 April, 2026

63. On the aspect of wrong provision being quoted and source of power still being available to the authority, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court, in the cases of N. Mani vs. Sangeetha Theatre and others (supra), P. K. Palanisamy vs. N. Arunmugham and another (supra) and Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited (supra), as also judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa vs. Pankaj Jaju (supra). There can be no quarrel with the said proposition and it is well-settled that only because a wrong provision is mentioned, the action undertaken by an authority, which otherwise has a source of power to justify its action, cannot be held to be unsustainable. But, in the present case, the respondent No.1 -MPT chose to undertake action specifically under Section 14 of the said Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Shivam Enterprises vs Jsw Steel Ltd. Formerly Known As Ispat ... on 10 April, 2026

63. On the aspect of wrong provision being quoted and source of power still being available to the authority, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court, in the cases of N. Mani vs. Sangeetha Theatre and others (supra), P. K. Palanisamy vs. N. Arunmugham and another (supra) and Union of India and another vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited (supra), as also judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa vs. Pankaj Jaju (supra). There can be no quarrel with the said proposition and it is well-settled that only because a wrong provision is mentioned, the action undertaken by an authority, which otherwise has a source of power to justify its action, cannot be held to be unsustainable. But, in the present case, the respondent No.1 -MPT chose to undertake action specifically under Section 14 of the said Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

M/S.Perfint Healthcare Pvt. Ltd vs California Institute Of Computer

53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of P.K.Palanisamy vs. N.Arumugam and Another reported in 2009 (9) SCC 173 that it is settled principle of law that an order passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity when it is brought to the notice of the court. The Master who himself is a delegatee of the high court has acted in violation of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orbis Real Estate Fund I,Hyderabad ... vs Adit (International Taxation)-2 - 2, ... on 10 September, 2025

7.5 We also note that the Ld. AO had taxed the income under Article 6 of the DTAA, which pertains to income from immovable property. Though this may appear as a technical misstep, the Ld. DR rightly on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 19 P.K.Palanisamy v/s N. Arumugham & Anr dated 23.07.2009, wherein, at para no. 13 of the order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or the order passed thereon would be a nullity", submitted that the substance of the transaction and not the label of the Article governs the taxability. Hence, we accept this contention of Ld. DR.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next