Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)Section 25 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Ouseph Mathai & Ors vs M. Abdul Khadir on 5 November, 2001
34. The Hon'ble Supreme in India, in Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadir, reported in 2002 (I) SCC 319 has clearly held that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, however, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where it is established that the lower court or the tribunal has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power, which resulted in injustice to any party. In the instant case, the respondent herein has categorically stated that he was only a tenant under the petitioner in the suit filed by him before the City Civil Court in the year 2006, however, he has taken totally a contradictory stand in the rent control matter that there is no jural landlord tenant relationship and that his earlier counsel was responsible for the averments made in the plaint. Admittedly, the suit was also dismissed by the Civil Court. Hence, he is estopped from raising totally a contradictory stand against his admission by disputing the jural relationship, which has to be construed only as an abuse of process of the Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
P. Chenchu Ramiah vs A.M. Noohu Nachia And Anr. on 30 October, 1998
In Chenchu Ramiah, P vs. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another, reported in 1991-1-LW 37, this Court held that the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the interim order of injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was maintainable on the ground that the suit was instituted without any bonafide intention to get justice, but only to obtain an interim order from the Court to use the same for illegal purpose and therefore, held that the plaintiff therein should not be permitted to prosecute such a suit and ordered struck off the file of the suit.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Murugesan vs C.P. Nataraja Mudaliar on 5 September, 1986
In Murugesan vs. C.P.Nataraja Mudaliar, reported in 100 Law Weekly 157, though an amendment sought for correcting the door number and rent amount in an eviction petition, on the ground of inadvertent errors was declined by the Rent Controller, the revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was held maintainable by this Court.
Sri La Sri Siva Shanmugha Arumugha ... vs S. Subramanian And Anr. on 11 November, 1981
11. This Court in Sri Sringeri Mutt Sree Saradha Peetam rep. by its Power Agent vs. S.Ganesan & another, 1998 TLNJ 40, held that though it was resisted that the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable, on the ground of appeal pending in a matter relating to grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, it was held that the Civil Revision Petition was maintainable, since the same was filed prior to the filing of the appeal preferred before the District Court. It was held that person, who comes to court for equitable remedy must come with clean hands without suppression of material facts, accordingly, vacated the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner therein and the petition was also dismissed by this Court by the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Shri Mohan Singh & Ors Etc vs International Airport Authority ... on 7 November, 1996
14. Mohan Singh vs. International Airport Authority of India, 1997 (9) SCC 132