IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

No explanation was given by the landlord for not occupying those buildings – Bona-fide of the landlord has to be doubted and that only leads to the presumption that the requirement of the landlord is not bona-fide and the tenant is not liable to be evicted on that ground – Therefore, the landlord is not entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of owners’ occupation – However, having regard to the finding that the tenant has committed willful default in the payment of rent, the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored and this Civil Revision Petition allowed. (2011) 3 MLJ 410 Bairappan @ Mani vs S. Mangammal Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of pleadings – Amendment of date of suit pronote – Typographical error – Affidavit for amendment – Competency of advocate to file affidavit – Protection of interest of client – Advocate on record not barred from filing affidavit. FACTS IN BRIEF: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the lower Court whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the date of Suit Pronote was allowed. The competency of Advocate on record to file such affidavit for amendment on behalf of the plaintiff is challenged by the revision petitioner. QUERY: Held: Whether an advocate on record is legally entitled to file an affidavit on behalf of his client? In the cause of action portion, the date of the suit pronote has been mentioned as 30.12.2005 and that the Suit Pronote also bares the date of 30.12.2005. When the mistake is committed by the learned counsel on record, the same can be corrected by his sworn affidavit. (2011) 3 MLJ 423 Rayathal (died) and Ors vs Periya Kannu and Ors Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 6 Rule 16 – Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act (40 of 1986), Section 14 – Rejection of plaint – Bar provided under Section 14 of Act – It cannot be stated that Section 14 is bar for seeking declaration that order of revenue authorities granting patta in other’s name cannot be maintained in civil Court. Held: Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in Court’s opinion, the second relief prayed for in the suit cannot be brought under Rule 16(a). Though Mr. Raghavachari vehemently argued that it will come under Rule 16 of Order 6 stating that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court citing various judgments of Honourable Supreme Court and our High Court, in Court’s opinion, it cannot be stated that it is an abuse of process of Court when a person prays for a declaration that the orders passed by the authorities are null and void. 22
2011 -2- L.W. 432 Sebasthian and Ors vs Shakul Hameed Ors Specific Relief Act (1963), Section 22/Courts power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc., Specific Performance, Possession in a case where property is in occupation of tenants, Relief, when can be granted/Execution Application, filing of, Maintainability, Transfer of Property Act (1882), Section 55/Duty upon the seller to hand over possession of the property which involved in a particular sale as its nature admits, Scope, Fraud, details of the same must be specifically pleaded. Held: Except the bald averments with regard to fraud and coercion, no details are found place in the written statement filed on the side of the defendants in Original Suit No.66 of -2000-Therefore, it is easily discernible that the fraud alleged on the side of the appellants/defendants in Original Suit No.66 of 2000 is not in consonance with legal requirements. It was contended that the relief of possession has not been sought for and the appellant-defendants are not in possession of the suit properties and therefore, E.A.Nos. are not legally maintainable, but the trial Court has erroneously allowed the same. 2011 -2- L.W. 445 S.R. Jayaraman and Ors vs C. Jothirlingam and Ors C.P.C., Order 33, Rule 1, Order 7, Rule 11, Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (1955), Section 25(d), 40, Practice and Procedure – Revision against order of lower court dismissing petition to reject the plaint, for non-payment of the Court fee within the time granted by the Court in CRP (NPD) No. 1399 of 2006 – In this case, though the time famed was fixed by this Court in C.R.P(NPD)No.1399 of 2006, the respondents filed application under Order 33, Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to continue the proceedings as informa pauperis and in that application before passing any order, the Stamp duty and the Court fee was paid – Hence, it cannot be stated that there is non compliance of Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., which warrants dismissal or the rejection of the plaint – CRP (NPD) NO.1399 of 2006 dismissed. C.R.P.No.3862 of 2009: was filed against the order passed in Unnumbered Interlocutory Application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking permission of the Court to sue as indigent persons – Along with the application filed under Order 33, Rule 1 of C.P.C., the respondents/plaintiffs also filed application seeking permission of the Court to recognize the Power Agent to continue the suit and that was granted, and that order is challenged in this revision petition. Held: Power Agent has filed an application to continue the application filed under Order 33, Rule 1, which is only a formal application – Further, in the Power given by the Principals to the Power Agent, it was stated that Power is given to act on behalf of the Principal in respect of any matter, which had not been stated in the Power, and such residuary power was given to the Agent to act on behalf of the Principal – Therefore, as per the residuary power given by the principal, the Agent is entitled to file the suit in respect of the permission given in the Power, and therefore, that cannot be challenged by the revision petitioner. 23
Page 1 and 2: Vol -VI May, 2011 Part-V IMPORTANT
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CASES WITH CITATION SUPREM
Page 5 and 6: HIGH COURT CITATION OF CIVIL CASES
Page 7 and 8: SUPREME COURT CITATIONS CIVIL CASES
Page 9 and 10: filed an application under Order 21
Page 11 and 12: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 9
Page 13 and 14: SUPREME COURT CITATIONS CRIMINAL CA
Page 15 and 16: Director of Company was accepted an
Page 17 and 18: 2011 (4) SCALE 614 Rallis India Ltd
Page 19 and 20: (2011) 3 MLJ 21 M.V. Jayavelu vs E.
Page 21 and 22: Petition is liable to be set aside
Page 23 and 24: 2011 -2 - TLNJ 142 (Civil) A. Govin
Page 25 and 26: (2011) 3 MLJ 251 K.P. Rajendran and
Page 27: Petitioner filed an application und
Page 31 and 32: Suit was originally filed by Compan
Page 33 and 34: Held: The Full Bench of the Appex C
Page 35 and 36: Facts: Plaintiff filed a Suit for d
Page 37 and 38: enables contemner to produce materi
Page 39 and 40: Held: Whenever an accused disputes

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?