Advanced Search Results

Abha Dastane-Rao and Another Vs. Prabhakar Deolankar and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

their position. If they have chosen not to do so, the consequences are of their own making. Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 301 Removal of executor Petitioner sought to remove first Respondent as executor of Will said to have been … condonation of delay. That application was rejected on 20th March 2014. She filed a review application No. M.A. 362 of 2014. This, too, was rejected on 24th July 2014. She then filed Writ Petition No. 2730 of

Chintaman Nilkant and anr. Vs. Gangabai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom184

record--Appeal proceeded with by surviving appellant--Power of Court to hear the appeal and reverse whole decree. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … but under Section 544, Civil Procedure Code, Anpurnabai had a right to appeal independently of the provisions of Section 362 and 582 of the Civil Procedure Code, if her defence was common to her and Gangabai, and the

Tata Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

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

Reported in : AIR1950Bom383; (1950)52BOMLR415; [1950]18ITR460(Bom)

Addie & Sons' Collieries, Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1924) 8 T.C. 671, referred to. - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Section 63: [S.B. Sinha & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Will Validity - Deceased, was a very … Cables, Ltd. (1925) 10 T.C. 155,' Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Tata Sons, Limited (1938) 41 Bom. L.R. 362, and Robert Addie & Sons' Collieries, Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1924) 8 T.C. 671, referred to.

Umed Chand Golcha Vs. Dayaram and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Reported in : 2001ACJ966

survives to the legal representatives being not covered by the exceptions contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court in para 8 said:(8) ...The principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona relates only to the … representative. Similar view has been taken by Madras High Court in C.P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores 1974 ACJ 362 (Madras). The compensation has been claimed on account of personal injuries sustained by the claimant and the Division

Kasturi and anr. Vs. Venu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1996)2MLJ453

progeny used in the earlier part of the Will and the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Succession Act. 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would have no application to the case on hand where there is … above second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2, who have failed through-out, in O.S.No. 362 of 1978, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai, against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional

In Re: Sarah Ezra

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR1931Cal560

to the caveator.3. Now it would appear at first sight clear that, under the terms of Section 219, Succession Act, 1925, the applicant is entitled to the grant prayed, if the deceased was a person subject to Part 5 … to its members.22. I may here refer to a passage in Ilbert's Government of India, Edn. 3, p. 362:The Indian Succession Act, 1965 (10 of 1865), which is based on English law, is declared by Section 2

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 4, 11, 11(6), 16, 31(7), 34 and 34(2); ;Indian Succession Act, 1925; ;Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; ;Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; ;Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 20; ;Interest Act, 1978; ;Interest Act, 1839

Reported in : AIR2005Cal332,2005(3)ARBLR548(Cal),2005(4)CHN279

Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka, (supra) Sushil Kumar Mehta (supra) and Sunder Das (supra) relate to orders passed under Indian Succession Act, 1925., Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 respectively and these … us is against a judgment of an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court rejecting an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for setting aside an award made and published

Tirith Kumar & Ors. versus Daduram & Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : [2024]12S.C.R.665

x x 56. I would hold that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 though in terms, would not apply to the Scheduled Tribes, the general principles contained therein being consistent with … Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal [1953] 1 SCR 939 : (1953) 1 SCC 362 - referred to. List of Acts Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Central Provinces … the High Court in overturning the findings returned by the Courts below is that: 2.6.1 The Court noticed Section 2 (2) of the HSA, 1956 and the judgment of this Court in Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v.

Joti Ram and ors. Vs. Chaman Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Civil

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 110-A(1) and 306; Indian Penal Code

Reported in : AIR1985P& H2

legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, the Supreme Court explained the scope of the provisions of s. 306, Succession Act, 1925 and observed that this section expresses a qualification of the maxim act personalis mortar cum persona to the … not survive to the legal heirs. Similarly, in C. P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores, 1974 Acc. C. J. 362 : (AIR 1974 Mad 178) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the compensation had been

Potti Lakshmi Perumallu Vs. Potti Krishnavenamma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937

Reported in : AIR1965SC825; [1965]1SCR26

the High Court relying upon its earlier decision held that the provisions of s. 214 of the Indian Succession Act. 1925 were attracted, the suit being one for the recovery of her share of the money due to the … Gangi A. I.R 1957 Nag. 28; Ramchandra v. Ramgopal I.L.R. [1956] Nag 362; Hanuman v. Tulsabai A.I.R 1956 Nag 63. 13. In addition to these … account when a share was allotted to her on partition amongst the sons. The share she gets under section 3(2) is not affected by any rule of Hindu law to the contrary and it has been held