Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Clinical Establishments (Registration And Regulation) Act, 2010
Section 6 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) ... vs Jasjit Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1993
34. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others3, a
Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court held that a decree passed by a court
without jurisdiction is a nullity and is 'non est'.
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
Section 15 in Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty And Anr vs Parambur Mariakutty Umma And Others on 8 February, 2000
2026:KER:4473
W.P(C) No.21430/2013 6
The Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
13. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P14 order is unsustainable in
law and ultravires the powers conferred under the Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act (for the sake of brevity, 'Madras HR&CE
Act'). The 1st respondent had gone beyond the powers and jurisdiction while
passing Ext.P14, and therefore, the impugned order is a nullity in the eyes of
law. The learned counsel would further submit that the Commissioner has
no jurisdiction to declare a registered deed and Ext.P6 purchase certificate as
void. He has no right to adjudicate the correctness of the purchase certificate.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur Mariakutty Umma1 and
Lakshmi v. Viswanathan2.
Indra Sen (Deceased) And Lakshmi ... vs Rajamma, M. Ashok Mungara And Pramila ... on 14 February, 2006
2026:KER:4473
W.P(C) No.21430/2013 6
The Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
13. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P14 order is unsustainable in
law and ultravires the powers conferred under the Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act (for the sake of brevity, 'Madras HR&CE
Act'). The 1st respondent had gone beyond the powers and jurisdiction while
passing Ext.P14, and therefore, the impugned order is a nullity in the eyes of
law. The learned counsel would further submit that the Commissioner has
no jurisdiction to declare a registered deed and Ext.P6 purchase certificate as
void. He has no right to adjudicate the correctness of the purchase certificate.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in
Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur Mariakutty Umma1 and
Lakshmi v. Viswanathan2.
1