Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Mr.Sellaraj vs The Residents Of Uma Nagar on 18 August, 2011 cites

Ammani vs The Tiruchengode Municipality on 19 February, 2004

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 4 C.T.C. 67 in the case of [T.Gnanamani Ammal Vs. The Avaniapppuram Town Panchayat] and also the judgments relied upon by the First Appellate Court viz., the judgments reported in (2004) 2 L.W. 112 in the case of [Ammani Vs. The Tiruchengode Municipality Thiruchengode Town, Namakkal District] and (2002) 3 L.W. 8180 in the case of [E.Elimalai and others Vs. Corporation of Madras and others] in support of his contention, wherein, it has been held that once the properties were earmarked for public purpose, the same cannot be sold by the owner by way of gift deed or sell the same to any parties, other than the purpose for which it was earmarked. The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the second respondent being the owner of the property, there cannot be any injunction against the true owner by the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

E. Venkatesan And Others vs Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity ... on 7 May, 1996

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 4 C.T.C. 67 in the case of [T.Gnanamani Ammal Vs. The Avaniapppuram Town Panchayat] and also the judgments relied upon by the First Appellate Court viz., the judgments reported in (2004) 2 L.W. 112 in the case of [Ammani Vs. The Tiruchengode Municipality Thiruchengode Town, Namakkal District] and (2002) 3 L.W. 8180 in the case of [E.Elimalai and others Vs. Corporation of Madras and others] in support of his contention, wherein, it has been held that once the properties were earmarked for public purpose, the same cannot be sold by the owner by way of gift deed or sell the same to any parties, other than the purpose for which it was earmarked. The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the second respondent being the owner of the property, there cannot be any injunction against the true owner by the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

T.Gnanamani Ammal vs The Avaniappuram Town on 31 January, 2007

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 4 C.T.C. 67 in the case of [T.Gnanamani Ammal Vs. The Avaniapppuram Town Panchayat] and also the judgments relied upon by the First Appellate Court viz., the judgments reported in (2004) 2 L.W. 112 in the case of [Ammani Vs. The Tiruchengode Municipality Thiruchengode Town, Namakkal District] and (2002) 3 L.W. 8180 in the case of [E.Elimalai and others Vs. Corporation of Madras and others] in support of his contention, wherein, it has been held that once the properties were earmarked for public purpose, the same cannot be sold by the owner by way of gift deed or sell the same to any parties, other than the purpose for which it was earmarked. The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the second respondent being the owner of the property, there cannot be any injunction against the true owner by the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A Selvam - Full Document
1