Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)
Rep. By Its Secretary vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 October, 2022 cites

H. H. Raja Harinder Singh vs S.Karnail Singh on 20 December, 1956

Reliance was also placed on Harinder Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271, but that decision also is distinguishable on facts and a proposition laid down therein is not the same which arises in this case. While construing R. 119 of the election rules in conjunction with section 81(1) of the representation of the people act, 1951, the Bench expressed the view that the words "not later than fourteen days" must be held to mean the same thing as "within a period of fourteen days".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

R.Muralidaran vs The District Registrar on 20 December, 2007

11. Once the Form-VII submitted by the writ petitioner is eschewed, it means that Form-VII submitted by the fourth respondent is not contested by a rival Form. It is true that two civil suits are pending. But no restraint order emanated from the civil Court forbearing the District Registrar from filing the Form-VII submitted by the fourth respondent. There is also a considerable merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 1308 (R.Muralidaran Vs. District Registrar) and 2013 (2) CTC 241 (Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi Registered Society Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), the petitioner could have only filed a civil suit. The second respondent has passed the impugned order only after hearing both the parties. She has borne the statutory scheme as well as the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions in mind. It does not call for any interference.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2013

11. Once the Form-VII submitted by the writ petitioner is eschewed, it means that Form-VII submitted by the fourth respondent is not contested by a rival Form. It is true that two civil suits are pending. But no restraint order emanated from the civil Court forbearing the District Registrar from filing the Form-VII submitted by the fourth respondent. There is also a considerable merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 1308 (R.Muralidaran Vs. District Registrar) and 2013 (2) CTC 241 (Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi Registered Society Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), the petitioner could have only filed a civil suit. The second respondent has passed the impugned order only after hearing both the parties. She has borne the statutory scheme as well as the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions in mind. It does not call for any interference.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate vs Mr. P.K. Rajagopal, Secretary, The ... on 20 April, 2001

8. Rule 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 mandates that notice must be given atleast 21 days before the day appointed for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/14 W.P(MD)No.15333 of 2022 such meetings. This was considered in the decision reported in 2001 (3) CTC 486 (R.Karuppan Vs. P.K.Rajagopal) and it was held that without giving 21 days' clear notice, no General Body Meeting of any association registered under this Act can be called.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - A K Rajan - Full Document
1   2 Next