Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Visalakshi Ammal vs C. Krishnaveni Ammal And Ors. on 4 September, 1939
In support of the above contentions the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the Division Bench decisions of our Madras High Court in Visalakshi Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal (1989) 2 L.W. 414 and Palanisami Filial v. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn.) Department, Madras-34 and Anr., L.P.A .No. 16 of 1993.
Palanisami Pillai vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And ... on 27 February, 1997
In support of the above contentions the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the Division Bench decisions of our Madras High Court in Visalakshi Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal (1989) 2 L.W. 414 and Palanisami Filial v. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn.) Department, Madras-34 and Anr., L.P.A .No. 16 of 1993.
K.M.M. Kadar Hussain vs O.M.R. Selvaraj And Two Ors. on 20 March, 1997
These two Division Bench decisions were referred to in the later decision of a Division Bench of our High Court reported in K.M.M. Kadar Hussain v. O.M.R. Selvaraj and two Ors. , wherein their Lordships AR. Lakshmanan and A. Raman, JJ. Stated that the appellate court should raise the points for determination and state the reasons for the decision as the provision of Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C. is mandatory, and the failure to follow the mandatory provisions would render the judgment defective, and so the judgment of the first appellate court was set aside for not following the mandatory requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C., and so their Lordships set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and remitted the matter to the first appellate court to dispose of the appeal a fresh as expeditiously as possible.
Gokal Chand-Jagan Nath vs Nand Ram Das-Atma Ram on 21 October, 1938
In support of the above contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to a decision of the Privy Council reported in Firm of Gokal Chand Jagan Natha v. Firm Nand Ram Das .
1