Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1119 (3.02 seconds)
Documents citing Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma ... vs Tuticorin Educational Society on 3 October, 2019

Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 84/87 Crl.O.P. Sr.No.31852 of 2022 etc. batch xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538).
Madras High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022

xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538).
Madras High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 68 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Imthiyas Begum vs Jakir Hussain on 27 March, 2024

24.But, now as mentioned above, that position was clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. holding the field now when alternative and efficacious remedy is available it is nothing but proper on the part of the High Court to direct the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court for filing proper petition under Order7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/25 C.R.P.(MD)No.1792 of 2023 Rule 11 of CPC.”
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G Ilangovan - Full Document

Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 84/87 Crl.O.P. Sr.No.31852 of 2022 etc. batch xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538).
Madras High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Paramakudi Vaniyar Uravin vs V.Sundaramoorthy : 1St on 26 March, 2024

25.But, now as mentioned above, that position was clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. holding the field now when alternative and efficacious remedy is available it is nothing but proper on the part of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/24 C.R.P.(MD)No.1657 of 2023 the High Court to direct the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court by filing proper petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.”
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G Ilangovan - Full Document

Annadurai vs Santhanakrishnan : 1St on 27 March, 2024

24.But, now as mentioned above, that position was clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. holding the field now when alternative and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/23 C.R.P.(MD)No.2635 of 2023 efficacious remedy is available it is nothing but proper on the part of the High Court to direct the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court by filing proper petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.”
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G Ilangovan - Full Document

Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 84/87 Crl.O.P. Sr.No.31852 of 2022 etc. batch xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538).
Madras High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 84/87 Crl.O.P. Sr.No.31852 of 2022 etc. batch xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538).
Madras High Court Cites 108 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next