Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal ... vs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi & ... on 30 July, 2018
99, it was held that such an appointment as next friend was necessary, Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew v. Kanta Mohan, AIR 1947 Cal 213.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)Smt. Shakuntala Devi Dalmia & Anr vs Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors on 20 November, 2009
In Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew v. Kanta
Mohan Mullick & Ors., (1945) 50 C.W.N. 14, a single bench of this court (Gentle, J.) held (on
p.28) that whilst there are similarities in the status of a minor and of a thakur, e.g. they are both
incapable of managing their property and protecting their interests, there are also dis-similarities,
e.g. the Indian Contract Act, 1872 denies a contractual capacity to a minor, but does not extend that
incapacity to a thakur.
Sarita Agarwala And Others vs Ruby Ganguly And Others on 9 January, 2019
Sm. Sushama Roy vs Atul Krishna Roy And Anr. on 22 February, 1955
This was followed by Gentle J. in the case of -- 'Sreedhar Jew v. Kanto Mohan Mullick .
Ram Ratan Lal vs Kashinath Tewari And Ors. on 29 July, 1965
In Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew v. Kanta Mohan Mullick, AIR 1947 Cal 213 such a view was taken disagreeing with a contrary view taken in an earlier Calcutta case.
Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur And Ors. vs Gopinath Das And Ors. on 4 December, 1959
As I understand the law, the person entitled to act as next friend is not limited to the members of the family or worshipper. Anybody can act as such next friend, but the law requires that anybody other than sebait instituting a suit in the name of the deity must be appointed as such by an order of the court. That is the law as recognised by this Court. Reference may be made to the case of Tarit Bhusam v. Sreedhar Salagram , Sreedhar Jew v. Kanto Mohan , and Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy, .
1