Ram Kishore Sharma Vs. State

Ram Kishore Sharma vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 07, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/955953

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/955953
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Manmohan
Decided On: Mar 07, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Kishore Sharma

Advocate Mr. Girish Aggarwal

Respondent

State

Advocate Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Ms. L. Gangmei, Ms. T. Pongener

Excerpt

.....advocates. date of decision:07. h march, 2013. % coram: hon'ble mr. justice manmohan judgment manmohan, j (oral):1. present petition has been filed under section 278 of the indian succession act for grant of letters of administration.2. the facts of the present case are that petitioner is father of late smt. mithlesh bheda, who unfortunately expired intestate on 21 st september, 2010 in delhi. the husband of late smt. mithlesh bheda is stated to have predeceased her and she is stated to have died issueless.3. in the present petition, it is stated that there is no class-i heir of the deceased and the petitioner being the only class-ii heir is entitled to all the properties of the deceased.4. petitioner has filed an affidavit by way of evidence in which he has stated as under:4. i say that the deceased was having the following properties at the time of her death:(i) cash amount of rs.10,000/-. (ii) bank locker no.401-a (408-a old) with union bank of india, napean sea road branch, mumbai-6 along with the articles lying therein. (iii) movable properties and household articles belonging to the deceased lying at 68-a, rungta house, napean sea road, mumbai-6.5. i say that at present i do not know about any other assets owned by the deceased and seeks liberty to include the other properties in future if i gain knowledge of other movable or immovable assets.6. on the directions of this court, objections were invited from the public at large by way of publication of citation in the statesman newspaper on 16th july, 2011. however, no objection has till date been received.7. the joint registrar vide order dated 31st july, 2012 has already clarified that no valuation report is required to be filed in the present case by the chief revenue controlling authority.8. consequently, this court directs issuance of letters of administration in respect of the properties mentioned in para 4 of the petitioners affidavit dated 07th august, 2012 in favour of the petitioner subject.....

Full Judgment

15 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 18/2011 RAM KISHORE SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Girish Aggarwal, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. L. Gangmei and Ms. T. Pongener, Advocates. Date of Decision:

07. h March, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration.

2. The facts of the present case are that petitioner is father of late Smt. Mithlesh Bheda, who unfortunately expired intestate on 21 st September, 2010 in Delhi. The husband of late Smt. Mithlesh Bheda is stated to have predeceased her and she is stated to have died issueless.

3. In the present petition, it is stated that there is no Class-I heir of the deceased and the petitioner being the only Class-II heir is entitled to all the properties of the deceased.

4. Petitioner has filed an affidavit by way of evidence in which he has stated as under:4. I say that the deceased was having the following properties at the time of her death:(i) Cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. (ii) Bank Locker No.401-A (408-A old) with Union Bank of India, Napean Sea Road Branch, Mumbai-6 along with the articles lying therein. (iii) Movable properties and household articles belonging to the deceased lying at 68-A, Rungta House, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-6.

5. I say that at present I do not know about any other assets owned by the deceased and seeks liberty to include the other properties in future if I gain knowledge of other movable or immovable assets.

6. On the directions of this Court, objections were invited from the public at large by way of publication of citation in The Statesman newspaper on 16th July, 2011. However, no objection has till date been received.

7. The Joint Registrar vide order dated 31st July, 2012 has already clarified that no valuation report is required to be filed in the present case by the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority.

8. Consequently, this Court directs issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the properties mentioned in para 4 of the petitioners affidavit dated 07th August, 2012 in favour of the petitioner subject to his furnishing the requisite court fee and submitting an administration bond with one surety in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MARCH 07 2013 js

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2013 Same Parties Ram Kishore Sharma vs State Same Subject Education Same Judge Manmohan