SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 1112

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Elanthammal and another – Appellant
Versus
Alagar and another – Respondent


Advocates:
C.Rajagopalan, for Petitioners.
V.Sitharanjan Das, for Respondent No.1.

ORDER: The petitioners whose application under O.21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code was rejected have filed the present civil revision petition.

2. According to the averments in the petition filed in the Court below, the shops subject matter of the civil revision petition at 28th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20, were allotted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively. They had put up their own construction, obtained electricity connection and had been carrying on the business. The allotment was made to the first petitioner to put up a mechanical shed and to the second petitioner to put up a wet grinder. The first respondent filed W.P.No.10700 of 1989 where one Ganapathy Automobiles, one V.K.G. Durai and one Meena Auto Works were made the sixth, seventh and eighth respondents and the prayer was for a mandamus to abate the nuisance caused by them. The writ petition was ordered by this Court on 19.9.1998 directing the said respondents to apply for license from the Corporation to carry on their workshop and other business and obtain orders from the Corporation. In the order passed in the writ petition it was stated that the respondents had paid the license fee. Therefore,















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top