Sitabai V Ramchandra - Judgment Search Results

Banabai and ors. Vs. Wasudeo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1979Bom181; (1980)82BOMLR388; 1979MhLJ133

of the Supreme Court which were relied upon are Sawan Ram v. Mst. Kalawanti : [1967]3SCR687 and Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 . The decision in Sawan Ram's case has an added significance in that it overrules the … the rights created by the adoption in the adoptive family. To the same effect is the decision in Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 , where also it was held that (at p. 347):--'The legal effect of adoption is to

Y.K. Nalavade Vs. Ananda G. Chavan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR454

Gitabai has only a right of maintenance, has no bearing on the question. In the case of Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 , the Supreme Court held that the family of a sole surviving co-parcener, with a widow … co-parcener by the sheer force of unaltered legal position in Hindu Law as per the rules of survivorship.;Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra [1966] A.I.R. S.C. 1523 followed.;The word 'vest' is a word of variable import, its precise meaning depending on

Kesharbai Jagannath Gujar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1981Bom115; (1981)83BOMLR159; 1981MhLJ1

Judges draw support for their conclusion from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra, reported in : [1970]2SCR1 . The facts in that case show that there was a coparcenery between two … Ramalingam [1970] A.I.R. S.C. 1730, followed, Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinalh Suthankar [1974] A.I.R. S.C. 878, Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra [1970] A.I.R. S.C. 343, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. RM. AR. Veerappa Chettiar 76 I.T.R. 467 explained.

Revanasiddappa Vs. Mallikarjun

Court: Supreme Court of India

Ors, SLP (C) No.27834 of 2017 33 (2020) 13 SCC58534 Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash:(1988) 2 SCC77 Smt Sitabai v. Ramchandra : (1969) 2 SCC544 Gowli Buddanna v. CIT, Mysore, Bangalore : AIR1966SC1523 Surjit Lal Chhabda v. Commissioner of

Khandavalli Ramachandracharyulu Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD570; 2008(5)ALT685

as well as the adoption. A strong reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 .14. It is further stated that as matters stood thus, the second respondent issued the notice,

Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ435All

birth to the family of its adoption. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sitabai v. Ramchandra AIR 1970 SC 343 : 1969 (2) SCC 544, in support of this proposition. He further, relies on

Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. Ii, Hyderabad Vs. Dhanpal Jagadishwar

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD461; 1999(1)ALT177; [1999]237ITR354(AP)

Undivided Family as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male members.'In the case of Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra, : [1970]2SCR1 , the Supreme Court held that 'under the Hindu system of law, the recognised position is

R. Ashok and anr. Vs. R. Bhagavathi Ammal (Deceased) and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1993)1MLJ492

effect of the language used in other parts of this section.The Supreme Court again in the case of Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 , adverted to this aspect of the law and in this judgment has said as follows:It

T.R. Chidambaram Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Chennai

Reported in: I(1992)DMC149; [1990]186ITR256(Mad)

: [1970]3SCR894 , would govern this case and that the other decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 and strongly relied on by the accountable person was clearly distinguishable. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that … members of the family. Strong reliance in this connection was placed by learned counsel upon the decisions in Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 , Vasant v. Dattu : AIR1987SC398 and Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe : [1988]2SCR1077

Dhanasekaran Vs. Manoranjithammal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1992Mad214; (1992)IIMLJ116

in concept than the term 'Hindu coparcenary' and cited G. Buddanna v. I.-T. Commissioner, Mysore : [1966]60ITR293(SC) and Sitabai v. Ramchandra, : [1970]2SCR1 . On this proposition of law, no doubt, there can be no two opinions. In other