Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr on 12 May, 2000

Sh. Jai Prakash vs Sh. Shyam Lal on 16 August, 2013

Petitioner claims to be the landlord of the tenanted premises. The rate of rent was Rs.2,000/­ per month and the tenanted premises was given on rent in the month of February, 1995 without any rent agreement. In fact, the petitioner had purchased the property from the previous owner Sh. Mukesh Kumar in the month of February, 1995, however, the ownership documents i.e. registered GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit of seller, payment receipt and Will were executed on 22.01.2002. The respondent was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and was in arrears since very beginning i.e. February, 1995. The respondent had on 28.11.95 filed a suit bearing no. 426/6/95 for perpetual injunction against one Surinder Kumar alleging him to be his landlord which was decreed ex­ parte by the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge. The respondent also had filed a petition u/s 45 of the DRC Act against Surinder Kumar bearing no. 3/2009 in which the petitioner herein had filed an application u/o I rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment. A prior legal notice dt 12.05.09 was also served which was duly replied by the respondent vide a E. No. 25/11. 2/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suman Kumari vs Sanjay Kumar on 18 August, 2023

The respondent appears in-person and waives service of 1 Sayed Sallemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsna : (2001) 5 SCC 247 2 Elizabeth Dinshaw (Mrs.) v. Arvand M. Dinshaw : (1987) 1 SCC 42 3 Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal : (2009) 1 SCC 42 4 Rosy Jacobs v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal : AIR 1973 SC 2090 5 Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India : (1999) 2 MLJ (SC) 62 6 Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sundar Agarwalla and another : (2000) 6 SCC 598 7 First Appeal No. 87 of 2022 notice.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Israr Ahmad vs Azazul Hussain Ahmad & Anr. on 20 December, 2019

4. We are of the view when the question of the custody of the child is involved, the primary consideration which weigh with the Court is the welfare of the child. Legal position is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as that of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla, (2000) 6 SCC 598: (AIR 2000 SC 2172) and R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna, 2001 (4) SCC 71: (AIR 2001 SC 1056). It is settled principle of law that custody orders, by their very nature, can never be final but a challenge should only be made if it is in the paramount interest of the child concerned. Custody of a minor is also a matter involving sentimental attachment. Such a matter is to be approached and tackled carefully. A balance has to be struck between the attachment and sentiments of the parties towards the minor children and the welfare of the minors which is of paramount importance. Principles exported by Personal Law and the provisions referred to hereinbefore cannot read in isolation and be divorced under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The overriding consideration is welfare of the child and the Personal Law would yield the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. Several decisions were cited at the bar for and against.
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri P Manjunath vs Sri Jagadish on 14 May, 2020

"The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled principle that custody orders by their nature can never be final; however, before a change is made it must be proved to be in the paramount interest of the children. In a sensitive matter like this no single factor can be taken to be decisive. Neither affluence nor capacity to provide comfortable living should cloud the consideration by the Court. Here we may refer to the decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Khadri vs. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and another 2000(6) SCC 598. In such matters usually, Courts while granting the custody of minor children to one party extend the facility of visiting them to the other."
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Piyush Vijay Kumar Chopra W/O Rohan ... vs Rohan Pramod Kumar Khanna on 24 February, 2023

In Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla [(2000) 6 SCC 598: AIR 2000 SC 2172] and Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli [(2008) 7 SCC 673 : AIR 2008 SC 2262] , this Court held that it is always permissible for the wards to apply for the modification of the order of the court regarding the custody of the child at any stage if there is any change in the circumstances.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Piyush Vijay Kumar Chopra W/O Rohan ... vs Rohan Pramod Kumar Khanna on 24 February, 2023

In Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla [(2000) 6 SCC 598: AIR 2000 SC 2172] and Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli [(2008) 7 SCC 673 : AIR 2008 SC 2262] , this Court held that it is always permissible for the wards to apply for the modification of the order of the court regarding the custody of the child at any stage if there is any change in the circumstances.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty vs Suman Sankar Bhunia on 21 September, 2023

7. She submits that even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840; Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112; Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 59; R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1056; and Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, (2010) 4 SCC 409, has held that orders passed on an application under Section 12 of the GW Act are interlocutory in nature and are subject to modification at any future time.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Sangeetha L. vs The Commissioner Of Police, Kochi And ... on 24 September, 2001

21. It is well settled proposition of law that custody of children by their very nature is not final but are interlocutody in nature subject to modification upon change of circumstances requiring change of custody and such change of custody must be proved to be in the best interest of the children. Reliance may be placed on the decisions. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840 : (AIR 1973 SC 2090), Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla (2000) 6 SCC 598 : (AIR 2000 SC 2172) and R. V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna, 2001 AIR SCW 1033 : (AIR 2001 SC 1056). Some of the cases are coming under the Guardians and Wards Act. Courts have reiterated that paramount consideration is the welfare of the children and Court has got the power to change their custody in the best interest of the children and taking into consideration of various attendant circumstances. We are aware, as far as writ of habeas corpus is concerned, we are not adjudicating the question as to who should be the legal guardian of the children. Between the parties there is a valid binding judgment in M.F.A. No. 744 of 1998 and by which legal custody was given to petitioner on the basis of the compromise decree. Therefore as per law the petitioner is the legal guardian of the children. In writ of habeas corpus neither the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act nor the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act would stand In the way; nor a decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In writ of habeas corpus the question is whether fourth respondent is illegally detaining the children and as to whether he is detaining the children against their wish. We have already indicated children have narrated before us that they were with the father from the infancy and that he used to look after their welfare and education. Barring a few days from 7-6-2001 to 2-7-2001 all along they were with their father. Probably a psychological bond with the father might have prompted them to escape from the school on 2-7-2001. We notice from the affidavit filed by the fourth respondent as well as the story unfold by the children to us that they left the maternal home on their own accord and they reached Pandalam on the night of 2-7-2001. It is the fourth respondent's friend Radhakrishnan who telephoned fourth respondent and it is at his instance father came to Pandalam and took the children to the house at Trivandrum. Since the children are with the fourth respondent on their own volition and that the children expressed their desire to be with the father and that it is their wish that their interest would be better safeguarded if they are with the father, we are of the view that the children are not in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next