Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Itc Limited vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011
(iv)He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
ITC Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 7 SCC
493, to urge that if public interest has not suffered nor is likely
to suffer, then the transfer must be allowed to stand, considering
the violations as a mere technical procedural irregularity,
without adverse effects. He states that cancellation must be
resorted to only if the violations result in adverse effect or has an
impact on the public interest, as public interest would prevail
over a transfer. He stated that if the violations are a mere short
recovery of consideration, the Court can permit the transfer by
giving an opportunity to the transferee to make good the short
21/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 08:30:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.19568, 22382 & 22383 of 2015
fall in consideration.
Faiyaz Husain Khan vs Munshi Prag Narain on 21 March, 1907
50.Insofar as this country is concerned, the Board of Privy
Council in Faiyaz Husain Khan Vs. Munshi Prag Narain and
others, ILR (1907) 29 All 339 at 345(PC), extended the
principles laid down in Bellamy Vs. Sabine to British India also.
Lord Macnaghten delivered the judgment for the committee.
Goudappa Appaya Patil vs Shivari Bhimappa Pattar And Another on 10 July, 1990
52. Writ, being a nature of a proceeding, would be covered under
Section 52 of the Act. The view that Section 52 applies to writ
proceedings also has been taken in two judgments of other High
35/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 08:30:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.19568, 22382 & 22383 of 2015
Courts, namely Goudappa Appayya Patil Vs. Shivari
Bimappa Pattar, AIR 1992 Kar 71 at 76 and in M/s.Chetak
Electric and Iron Industries Vs. Rajasthan Finance
Corporation, AIR 1998 Raj 42.
Velayuda Mudali (Died) And Anr. vs The Co-Operative Rural Credit Society ... on 26 April, 1933
55.I should also point out that as long as a proceeding is
pending before a Court, this Court nearly 90 years ago has taken
a view that lis pendens would apply. [See, Velayuda Mudali Vs.
The Co-operative Rural Credit Society, AIR 1934 Mad 40 =
(1934) 66 Mad LJ 90].
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
68.The impugned order is not a stand alone order. A
reading of the same shows that it was passed pursuant to the
orders passed by the First Bench of this Court, in the writ
petition and in the review petitions. If I were to agree with
42/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 08:30:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.19568, 22382 & 22383 of 2015
Mr.N.R.Elango and Mr.N.L.Rajah and quash the proceedings, it
would be indirectly upholding the illegal allotments made by the
Chairman (CMDA) in favour of the vendors. It is a settled
position in law of writs that a Constitutional Court, while
exercising its writ jurisdiction, will not quash an order even if it
comes to a conclusion that the same is illegal, if the result of
doing so is to revive another order which is illegal. This position
is settled by a series of the judgments of the Supreme Court. I
merely have to apply the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
present case. [(See, Godde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government
of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828)
(K.Subbarao, J.)]
Daryao And Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others(And ... on 27 March, 1961
69.Further more, the plea that the sale deeds had been
executed in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and that they
had in turn created third party rights, was directly and
substantially the issue in the review petitions before the Division
Bench. The Division Bench had rejected the plea. Once that plea
is rejected, it operates as a res judicata on this Court. The
principle of res judicata is when an issue had been directly and
substantially heard by a Court of competent jurisdiction, on a
previous occasion and a finding has been rendered, then the
43/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 08:30:51 pm )
W.P.Nos.19568, 22382 & 22383 of 2015
subsequent Court cannot re-visit the same issue. This is
founded on the principles of public policy that res judicata pro
veritate accipitur a matter adjudicated is taken for truth or a
judicial decision must be accepted as correct. It is beyond cavil
that res judicata is applicable to writ petitions also. (See, Daryao
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457].