Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)
D.Harish vs Champalatha on 28 April, 2023 cites

Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen And Ors on 8 April, 1997

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 125 - Full Document

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh(D)Thru Lrs on 24 September, 2018

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 37 - A Mishra - Full Document

K.P. Nataranjan vs Muthalammal on 16 July, 2021

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Varada Reddiar And Anr. vs Jayachandran And Ors. on 7 February, 1996

That apart, any decree based on a cryptic non-speaking judgement, and obtained by inducing the trial Court to commit a fundamental defect calculated to defeat the right of a third party to the suit amounts to miscarriage of justice, and this Court might have to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and restore status quo ante as was prior to the passing of the decree. Placing reliance on the ratio in Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 76], Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 449]; K.P.Natarajan and Another Vs Muthalammal and others [(2021) 5 MLJ 527 (SC) = LNIND 2021 SC 200] J.Sivasubramanian and another Vs N.Govindarajan and another [1988 (1) CTC 470]; N.Maheswari Vs. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2954 of 2021 Mariappan and others [2013(2) CTC 388], Ranipet Municipality, Rep. by its Corner and Special Officer, Ranipet Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan [1998 (1) CTC 66]; Varada Reddiar and another Vs. Jayachandran and others [1996 (II) CTC 611], Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District [2021 (5) CTC 335], the learned counsel argued that anything done by manipulating the judicial process with the intent to defeat the justful right of third parties cannot be allowed to stand.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Sm. K. Ponnalagu Ammal vs The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 7 November, 1952

Reliance was placed on the ratio in Ponnalagu Ammani Vs. State of Madras [1966 L.W.136]; V.N.Krisna Murthy and Another Vs. Ravikumar and Others [(2020) 9 SCC 501]; Pharez John Abraham (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam K. and Others [(2020) 13 SCC 711]; Banwari Lal Vs. Chando Devi [1993) 1 SCC 581]; Maneck Gustedji Burjarji Vs. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza [(1977) 1 SCC 227]; Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and another Vs. Dr.Rajkishore Tripathi and Another [AIR 1977 SC 615]; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors. [2020-2-L.W.256 : (2019) 7 MLJ 721] and Abdul Rashid Sahib Vs. Ramachandran [2022(3) CTC 667]. Discussion & Decision:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

V.N. Krishna Murthy vs Sri Ravikumar on 21 August, 2020

Reliance was placed on the ratio in Ponnalagu Ammani Vs. State of Madras [1966 L.W.136]; V.N.Krisna Murthy and Another Vs. Ravikumar and Others [(2020) 9 SCC 501]; Pharez John Abraham (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam K. and Others [(2020) 13 SCC 711]; Banwari Lal Vs. Chando Devi [1993) 1 SCC 581]; Maneck Gustedji Burjarji Vs. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza [(1977) 1 SCC 227]; Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and another Vs. Dr.Rajkishore Tripathi and Another [AIR 1977 SC 615]; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors. [2020-2-L.W.256 : (2019) 7 MLJ 721] and Abdul Rashid Sahib Vs. Ramachandran [2022(3) CTC 667]. Discussion & Decision:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 22 - K Murari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next