Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Sri Muthu Kumaraswamy Devasthanam vs E.Samundeeswari on 7 August, 2019 cites

Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors on 12 December, 2006

37. Adverting to the decisions relied upon by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and 24/33 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.483 of 2019 in C.S.No.303 of 2019 others only lays down the broad proposition of law to the effect that an order passed by a court when the jurisdiction would be coram non judice being nullity, the same ordinarily cannot be given effect to. There is no dispute regarding the broad proposition of law stated therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court however did not consider the question of bar enacted under the particular enactment and the effect of such bar. The jurisdiction of civil court to incidentally decided matters which may be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the enactment was not gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I therefore do not think that the said decision can be relied upon as a precedent to conclude that the judgment of the civil court in case on hand in O.S.No.7518 of 2008 is a nullity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 214 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Thiruvengada Varadachariar Alias R. ... vs Srinivasa Iyengar And Ors. on 2 August, 1972

38. The Division Bench of this Court in Thiruvengada Varadachariar alias R.Varadachari Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar referred to supra had dealt with a suit filed for recovery of possession of a temple on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit were the hereditary trustees of the said temple. The right of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 as hereditary trustees itself was questioned by the defendants 1 and 2. It was in that backdrop, the 25/33 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.483 of 2019 in C.S.No.303 of 2019 Division Bench concluded that the suit as framed is not maintainable before the civil Court.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sayarakshai Kattalai And Arthajama ... vs R. Radhakrishnan And Anr. on 29 March, 2001

In Sayarakshai Kattalai and Arthajama Kattalai attached to Arulmighu Kayaroganaswamy and Neelayadakshi Amman Thirukoil, Nagapattinam vs. R. Radhakrishnan and another reported in 2001 (3) MLJ 73, this court had held that it is a settled position of law that a civil suit is not barred in respect of the relief which cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner and in fact in such a suit, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide all incidental issues which are within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. While doing so, this court had observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next