Advanced Search Results

Adapala Subba Reddy and anr. Vs. Adapala Andemma and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 247; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 40, Rule 1

Reported in : AIR1951Mad393; (1950)IIMLJ650

or under any inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It was pointed out intar alia that under Section 247, Succession Act, 1925, pending any suit touching the validity of the will of a deceased person the Court may appoint an … 638 and Bhuban Mohini Debi v. Kiran Bala Debi, 13 C. L. J. 47 : 9 I. C. 215 were cited to us as well as the decision of the Privy Council in Benoy Krishna v. Satis

N.Jagannathan. Vs.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act, 1902 - Section 60; Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 296; Madras High Court Original Side Rules - Order 25 Rule 65,; Constitution of India - Articles 215

submitted by Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for one of the respondents in the appeals, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 there is absolutely no provision enabling a party to send the Letters of Administration obtained from India to … Original Side Rules contemplates the commission of contempt, which read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, empowers this Court of record, as a … under the Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act, 1902 has absolutely no meaning. On a bare reference to Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act, 1902, which is claimed to be a provision under

Madan Lal Butail Vs. Pyare Lal Gupta and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Subject : Property

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Section 215; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 11 - Order 21, Rule 97

Reported in : AIR1997HP74

the execution petition filed by the petitioner decree-holder. The objection was filed under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Sections 48.50.5l and Order 21. Rules 10 and 97 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code.2.

Antony Chelliah Vs. Mariyal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Reported in : (1997)2MLJ140

that Maria Anthoni died intestate and the shares have to be worked out in terms of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Aggrieved, the first defendant has filed the above appeal.5. Mr. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, while … judge required to be restored.6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Section 215 of the Indian Succession Act mandates that no right as executor or legatee can be established in any

Preman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Property

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 118; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26

Reported in : AIR1999Ker93

of 1996. The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are Christians. Aggrieved against Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, they have filed the Original Petitions to declare the said provision as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of … of the following provisions of the Act, namely. Sections 5 - 49, 58 - 191, 212, 213 and 215 - 369, the members of any race, sect ortribe in the State, or of any part of such

J. Kista Reddy and ors. Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 212, 213, 214, 214(1), 215 and 216; Land Acquisition Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 146 - Order 22

Reported in : AIR2005AP217; 2005(2)ALD666; 2005(2)ALT70

certificate, and in that view of the matter, their request is barred under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, (for short 'the Act').4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 214 of the Act applies only … felt necessary, the Legislature referred to the stage of pendency of the suit or proceedings. For instance, in Section 215, a clear reference is made to pendency of proceedings. It reads as under:Section 215: 'Effect on certificate of

Emperor Vs. Yellappa Durgaji Jadhav

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR523

them to be illegal or untenable.;Saadat Mian v. King-Emperor (1926) I.L.R. 6 Pat. 329, dissented from. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … 213 and 114 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code. The applications are made under the provisions of Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the committal quashed on the ground of certain illegalities that

J.B. Advani and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Pro ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)

Reported in : AIR1950Bom297; (1950)52BOMLR434; [1950]18ITR557(Bom)

I to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.;Tennant v. Smith (1892) 3 T.C. 158, referred to. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … and exclusively for the purposes of business.;Strong & Co., Limited v. Woodifield [1906] A.C. 448, s.c. 5 T.C. 215, followed.;The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v.E.C. Warner & Co., Ltd. (1919) 12 T.C. 227, The Commissioners of Inland

Emperor Vs. Suleman Ibrahim Nakhuda

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR201

to sustain the charges. The committal can be quash ed on a point of law only. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … the question of illegality. Therefore, I agree with the order proposed. Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 215, 347--Order of committal--Quashwing of--Point of law--Practice.;An order of committal to the Sessions Court cannot be quashed by the

Solomon and ors. Vs. Muthiah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Property

Reported in : (1974)1MLJ53

III of 1951), which came into force on 1st April, 1951. it was the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that applied to the succession to the property of Swaminathan which opened on his death on 29th May, … Act, namely, Sections 5 to 49, 58 to 191, 212, 213 and 215 to 369, the members of any race, sect or tribe, to whom … Muthammal did not have an absolute interest in the immovable properties inherited from her husband Swaminathan, but under Section 17 of the said Regulation, she was entitled to an absolute right in respect of the movables and