Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.12 seconds)Section 20 in Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Section 111 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Chainraj Ramchand, Registered ... vs V.S. Narayanaswamy And Ors. on 31 August, 1981
Though such contention was raised before the court below. It was not considered with reference to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or the By-laws. The mere fact that she represented the Society in other proceedings would not mean that she is clothed with the authority to enter into such compromise unless she is empowered to do so by virtus of the provisions of the Act and the By-laws of the Society framed thereunder. The mere fact that Superior Sister Augustine represented the society would not also clothe her with the extraordinary power to enter into compromise in view of the ratio in the decision reported in Chainraj Ramchand v. V.S Narayanaswamy1, already quoted. When once it is found that she is not competent to enter into the compromise, it cannot be circumvented by observing that it is the duty of the sister to obtain necessary sanction or authority from the Counsel. The Appellant-Society is not bound by the compromise if it is held that Superior Sister Augustine was not empowered to enter into compromise. When once it is held that the compromise was not entered into by a competent authority, it cannot be said that the compromise is lawful and binding on the appellant-Society. Thus, substantial questions 1 and 2 are answered only in favour of the appellant.
A. Venkataramana Bhatta And Anr. vs Krishna Bhatta And Ors. on 17 March, 1924
In A.Venkataramana Bhatta vs. Krishna Bhatta and others reported in it has been held as follows:
Society Of The Sisters Of The Blessed ... vs Madras -E- Bakiyanthus Salihath on 18 November, 1989
In Sudakar's case, a perusal of facts would show that the resolution passed by the society/trust debarring the petitioner was called in question by the debarred members, on the ground that the bye laws do not provide for such debarring while in Society of Sister's case, the concerned individual neither had authority nor had a resolution in her favour.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Shiam Behari Lal Gour And Ors. vs Madan Singh on 8 December, 1944
26. Shiam Behari Lal Gour and Others vs. Madan Singh (1944 ILR 245) it has been held as the law leans against forfeiture. The principle governing the constructions of a clause for forfeiture is that it must always be construed strictly as against the person who is trying to take advantage of it and effect should be given to it only so far as it is rendered absolutely necessary to do so by the wording of the clause.