Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lata Ekanath Patil Vs. Tanuja Ekanath Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR385
Kakade P.V., J.In this appeal preferred by the appellant-lady who claims to be wife of deceased Eknath Patil, disputes the disbursement of the amount to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are children of the deceased Eknath by his first wife.2. The appellant filed application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the lower Court on the ground that she was legally wedded wife of deceased Eknath and their relations as husband and wife existed till the death of Eknath who expired on 6-6-2005. Deceased Eknath was working as Goods Guard in Central Railway Bhusawal Division. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are children of deceased Eknath begotten from his first wife since the deceased, have made claim of amount of Rs. 7,30,536/- which was available for disbursement from the employer to legal successors of deceased Eknath. The appellant informed the Railway Authorities that she was entitled to the amount of deceased Eknath regarding service settlement dues and family pension on 13-6-200...
Urmila Devi Agarwal Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR430
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of our High Court reported in : (1965)67BOMLR376 in the case of (Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. v. Jivabhai Patel Marghabhai Patetl), in particular, exposition in Paragraph 8 thereof to contend that the notice will have to be issued by the Court before admission. However, learned Counsel fairly accepts that the Apex Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. and Ors. reported in : [1983]3SCR962 , has plainly observed that the Company is entitled for pre admission notice. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the respondent company will have to be served with notice indicating that the matter will proceed for admission before the Court.2. Counsel for the petitioner would then contend that the notice should be formally issued by the Court. This submission overlooks that the notice is already issued in the matter which has been made returnable as...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›