Advanced Search Results

indrajitsinghji Vijaysinghji Vs. Rajendrasinghji Vijaysinghji

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 26, 85, 86, 86(1), 86(3), 87-B and 141; Bombay High Court Rules - Rules 665, 689, 690 and 692; Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 235, 268 and 295; Indian Companies Act - Sections 184, 186 and 187; Government of India Act - Sections 176

Reported in : AIR1956Bom45; (1955)57BOMLR962; ILR1955Bom912

the High Court of Bombay, 1950, Rule 692--Indian Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Sections 268, 295--Petition for letters of administration converted into suit under Rule … The question of substantive rights and the question of imposing disabilities can only be dealt with in the Succession Act which deals with these proceedings.But when these proceedings come to a Courtof law, the Court has to consider … conclusion that it did apply to proceedings under Section 186 or Section 187 and not to proceedings under Section 184. With regard to Sections 186 and 187 they undoubtedly took the view that Section 86 was applicable because

Jayantilal Mansukhlal and anr. Vs. Mehta Chhanalal Ambalal

Court : Gujarat

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 15(1), 15(2), 21 and 105

Reported in : AIR1968Guj212; (1968)0GLR129

21 of the Act thus acts as a proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 105 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in cases governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.(19) In India, prior to the enactment of the Hindu … proved, that the younger survived the elder.'(18) Section 21 of the Act incorporates the rule now enacted in Section 184 of the English Law of Property Act, 1925, which reads as under:--'In all cases where, after the commencement

Manorama Bai Vs. Rama Bai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Law; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 to 104 and 114; ;Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3(2)

Reported in : AIR1957Mad269

of all occurred at the same moment.' 31a. In India, the English rule Preceding the Law of Property Act, 1925 (Section 184) will govern cases failing under Lawson's Rule 54. The leading decision on that subject is -- 'Agha Mir … English Law of Property and which it may be stated is also being embodied in the forthcoming Hindu Succession Act. The established facts in the instant case are: The picnic party was returning in two boats. They capsized

Mahadevia and Mehta Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2001)72TTJ(Cal)439

not brought any evidence in records, for satisfaction of all the parties hereto, as envisaged by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to become a partner in the said partnership business in place of … consolidated order dated 9-10-1995, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta V, in the matter of order under section 186 read with section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Purnasree Cinema Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1983)5ITD592(Kol.)

between persons and not between individuals. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 311 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 wherein the powers of several executors or administrators have been defined. He pointed out that in accordance with … During the year under consideration the assessee applied for continuation of registration by filing a declaration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in Form No. 12 but the said Form No. 12 was

Harsh Vardhan Lodha and Others Vs. Devendra Kumar Mantri and Others

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Right to Information

AIR 1933 Bom 342, Pandurang Shamrao Laun and ors. vs. Dwarkadas Kalliandas and ors.; APL and Receiver under Succession Act, 1925, Section 247 It was held that - the position of an administrator pendente lite is similar to that of … getting rid of the corresponding burdens (para 17) d) Jermyn Street Turkish Baths Ltd. [(1971) 3 All ER 184]; To substantiate the contention that APL has a right to intervene in case. The affairs of a company

Harsh Vardhan Lodha and ors. Vs. Devendra Kumar Mantri and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Education

h) AIR 193.Bom 342, Pandurang Shamrao Laun & ors. vs. Dwarkadas Kalliandas & ors.; APL and Receiver under Succession Act, 1925, Section 247 It was held thatthe position of an administrator pendente lite is similar to that of a receiver, … by getting rid of the corresponding burdens (para17) d) Jermyn Street Turkish Baths Ltd. [(1971) 3 All ER 184].; To substantiate the contention that APL has a right to intervene in case. The affairs of a company

Ross's Judicial Factor Vs. Martin

Court : House of Lords

Subject : Land Acquisition

Margery Newton Ross died before Miss Hannah Ross. The provisions of section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, under which, if such a case were to occur in England, there is the presumption that the elder … itself "even if imperfectly expressed." I think that the rule is accurately expressed by Lord M'Laren (Wills and Succession, (3rd ed.) p. 359): "Where it is apparent from the language of a will that the testator has

Peoples' Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sardul Singh Caveeshar and Ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 162, 184, 185, 195 and 196; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 24

Reported in : AIR1961P& H87

at any stage and he can suo motu examine the accounts filed under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act (1925) so as to pass an order under clause (4) of that section. Reference may also be made to … as the Official Liquidator of the Company.8. This petition relates to three cases under Section 185, one under Section 184, and one under Sections 195 and 196 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. All these matters arise under

G.Ganesan and ors. Vs. P.Sundari and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 213(1)

ground that it was not probated as per law and so, as per Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the said document could not be proved in evidence in the suit. 5.However, it was the contention of … 15.Similar question arose before a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Cherichi v. Ittianam (AIR 2001 KERALA 184). After having an elaborate survey of the said legal position including the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court