Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
R.M. Narayana Chettiar And Another vs N. Lakshmanan Chetfiar And Others on 11 October, 1990
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the leave granted by the court below was only after hearing both sides and it was not an ex parte order. Therefore, the question of revoking the leave does not arise. Though in C.R.P.No.710 of 2006, liberty was given to the respondents to approach the trial court to take out an appropriate application, the present application filed by the respondents to revoke the leave, cannot be construed as an appropriate application since the leave was granted on merits. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court had revoked the leave on an erroneous conclusion that the 1st respondent is not a public trust. The point which was not taken by the respondents is now raised against the appellants. Moreover, the trust is running an engineering college and it has been recognised by the Public Trust by the Income Tax Department and the income tax exemption was given to the 1st respondent trust and under such circumstances, the finding arrived at by the trial court that the 1st respondent is not a public trust, is patently illegal. Hence, the order dated 23.07.2010 is liable to be set aside and in support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 (M/s.THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD., .vs.. GOVT.OF A.P.,) and AIR 1991 SC 221 (R.M.NARAYANA CHETTIAR v. N.LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR.
Raju Pillai And Others vs V.P. Paramasivan And Others on 2 January, 1995
In 1995-1-L.W.518 (Raju Pillai and 4 others vs. V.P.Paramasivam and 7 others), this court held that a revision under sec.115 of C.P.C.or a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable againt an order granting leave to institutute the suit.
1