Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing G.Rama vs T.G.Seshagiri Rao(D) By Lrs on 7 July, 2008

Hyderabad 500 072 vs Chennai Garr Tech Limited

In (2008) 12 SCC 392, G.Rama Vs. T.G.Seshagiri, the facts were that the property in question in that case was originally purchased by T.G.Seshagiri and his uncle T.K.Vasudeva Murthy, under a registered deed. Subsequently, T.K.Vasudeva Murthy relinquished his right to T.G.Seshagiri, who therefore became the absolute owner. The appellant G.Rama was the daughter-in-law of T.K.Vasudeva Murthy. She lost her husband and was permitted to reside in the house as a licensee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first instance found that no issue had been framed regarding Section 14 and no evidence was also let in on the issue whether she was permitted to possess the property in lieu of maintenance.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Unknown vs Chennai Garr Tech Limited

In (2008) 12 SCC 392, G.Rama Vs. T.G.Seshagiri, the facts were that the property in question in that case was originally purchased by T.G.Seshagiri and his uncle T.K.Vasudeva Murthy, under a registered deed. Subsequently, T.K.Vasudeva Murthy relinquished his right to T.G.Seshagiri, who therefore became the absolute owner. The appellant G.Rama was the daughter-in-law of T.K.Vasudeva Murthy. She lost her husband and was permitted to reside in the house as a licensee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first instance found that no issue had been framed regarding Section 14 and no evidence was also let in on the issue whether she was permitted to possess the property in lieu of maintenance.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Priti Ranjan Dash vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 June, 2022

The appellant bank has also relied on one judgment titled as Shri. G. v. Rao vs. Centre for DNA, Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad bearing file no. CIC/AT/A/2008/00437, wherein the Commission vide its order dated 31.12.2008 has held that "Considering the large ramification, it is unsafe to authorise disclosure of such information under the RTI Act." The Commission has carefully gone through the contents of the said judgment and observes that the said case is applicable in the present matter.
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

Pushpadant Dharwad Bin Padmappa ... vs Vishweshwar Khare Bin Prahalad Bhat on 14 September, 2012

In the decision reported in 2008(5) KLJ 460 in the case of G Rama Vs. T G Sheshasgiri Rao, with reference to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Apex Court has held that, in the absence of any evidence to show that in lieu of 12 maintenance property was given or permitted to possess the property, mere possession does not automatically attract Section 14 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

Rukmani Devi vs B.R.R. Holdings Pvt. Ltd on 28 May, 2020

In paragraph 7(e), it had been stated that with respect to the decisions relied, namely, (2008) 17 SCC 491 [ Bachhaj Nahaar Vs. Nilima Mandal]; (2008) 12 SCC 302 [ G.Rama Vs. T.G. Seshagiri Rao]; and (2003) 1 SCC 212 [Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde Vs. Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde]; it had been wrongly observed in the Judgment that the petitioner had relied only on the head note of the decision reported in (2003) 1 SCC 212 [Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde Vs. Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde]. It was stated that the counsel had placed reliance on paragraph No. 7 of the above Judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Sri Vishwaraj vs B M Byrappa on 1 March, 2013

In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that in view of 8th defendant having raised a plea in written statement denying the execution of deed dated 16.01.1951 Exhibit P-2 in reply to the contention raised by the plaintiff in paragraph 9 whereunder it was specifically contended 8th defendant and her mother had executed an agreement dated 16.01.1951 the trial court ought to have framed the issue, since trial court relied upon Exhibit P-2 to arrive at a conclusion that 8th defendant and her mother became the absolute owner of "Kanagundi House" as per section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and in support of his submission he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.G.Rama Vs T.Seshagiri Rao (deceased by LRs) reported in 2008 (5) AIR Kar (R) 176 whereunder it has been held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next