Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1153(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN83; 2006(5)CTC262; 2006(13)SCALE577
..... issue on the respondent. the trial court shall also look into the aspect as to the effect of the will, it being not probated as provided under section 218 of the indian succession act.7. mr. ranjit kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the four ..... the plaintiffs seek the remedy of possession in respect of their shares in the property in dispute. i do not agree with the counsel of the plaintiff that provisions of section 31 are permissive. the respondent filed another suit, which was marked as suit no. 276 of 1992, for declaration and consequential relief. the said suit was also ..... instead of being put on the respondent who was under legal obligation to prove this issue strictly in terms of section 63 of the indian succession act, the document in question being will and its prove being governed by indian succession act, 1925. 19. as discussed above the appellant on whom the onus was to prove issue no. 4 did .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC663; 2007(2)AWC1148(SC); 2007(1)CTC186; [2007(2)JCR202(SC)]; 2007MPLJ25(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1636; 2006(13)SCALE645
..... the learned single judge was set aside. an application for review filed there against was also dismissed. parliament inserted section 100a in the code of civil procedure by section 38 of act no. 104 of 1976, which was substituted by section 4 of act no.22 of 2002, which came into force with effect from. 01.07.2002.4. the core question which ..... it is clarified that such right can be taken away by a subsequent enactment either expressly or by necessary intendment. the parliament while amending section 100a of the code of civil procedure, by amending act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002, took away the letters patent power of the high court in the matter of appeal ..... thus to be seen that when the legislature wanted to exclude a letters patent appeal it specifically did so. the words used in section 100a are not by way of abundant caution. by the amendment acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters patent appeal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC561; 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)942
..... of any direction by the election commission to the contrary, forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner provided by the act or the rules made under the act. section 67 requires the returning officer to report the result to the appropriate authority and the election commission and the appropriate authority would cause to ..... by the high court. he submitted that the high court was wholly justified in dismissing the petitions and in interpreting the relevant provisions of the act and in particular, section 81 thereof. according to him, the relevant date for filing an election petition would be the date of declaration of returned candidate and once such ..... raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of petitions on the ground of limitation. it was contended that in accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the act, an election petition could be presented calling in question any election of a successful candidate within a period of forty-five days from the date .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC1501; 2007(3)ALD39(SC); 2007(2)AWC1145(SC); 2007(1)KLT243(SC); (2007)147PLR247; 2006(14)SCALE7; 2007AIRSCW2027; 2007(3)CivilLJ685; 2007(3)AIRKarR350(SC)
..... , keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have been determined in such a proceeding. section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states as to what would be the interest of transferee of a partner. sub-section (2) thereof determines the right of a transferee if the firm is dissolved or if the transferring partner ceases to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; (2007)3SCC169; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
..... of appellant no. 2, mother of amit batra. hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.23. no doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in section 2(s) of the act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does ..... not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.22. as regards section 17(1) of the act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared household' would only mean the ..... is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.21. learned counsel for the respondent smt. taruna batra has relied upon section 19(1)(f) of the act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. in our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT249(SC); 2006(13)SCALE600; 2007AIRSCW2140; (2007)1Crimes54(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)21
..... .we will refer to the evidence of the other child witnesses a little later but we may notice the legal position operating in the field. 24. section 118 of the indian evidence act seeks to exclude evidence of those who may suffer from intellectual weaknesses. it reads as under:who may testify.- all persons shall be competent to testify ..... not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. on the contrary, section 118 of the evidence act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational ..... same.35. while upholding the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge as also the high court, we only convert the death penalty to rigorous imprisonment of life under section 302/149 of the indian penal code. convictions and sentences on other charges are upheld. criminal appeal nos. 1278-1279 of 2005, so far as a1 is concerned, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC270; 2006(14)SCALE87; (2006)10SCC491
..... note of the factual background and the legal position highlighted above, we think it proper to accept the time period fixed by the forest advisory committee constituted under section 3 of the conservation act. that means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. this .....
Tag this Judgment!