Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Omprakash & Ors vs Radhacharan & Ors on 5 May, 2009

Mamta Dinesh Vakil vs Bansi S. Wadhwa on 6 November, 2012

149. The provisions in Sections 8 and 15 show discrimination between Hindu males and females. They show discrimination only on the ground of gender. The family unit or the tie may be a justification, but the discrimination is not upon family ties. The classification made is not upon family ties. The classification is wholly and only between males and females. The female acquiring property by her own skill and exertion would deprive herself of allowing it to succeed to her own heirs being her mother and father or their heirs in preference to the heirs of the husband under Section 15(1)(b) as was the lot of the Petitioners in the case of Omprakash Vs. Radhacharan 2010(1) All MR 453 in which the Constintutional Validity was not brought up for consideration. Years of toil and skill would, therefore, be watered down as would be seen in Suit No.86 of 2000. Conversely a Hindu female who would otherwise hope to succeed to an estate of another Hindu female as an heir would receive a setback from the distant relatives of the husband of the deceased not even known to her or contemplated by her to be her competitors except upon claiming precedence as class II heirs under Section 8 or as preferential heirs under section 15(1)
Bombay High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - R Dalvi - Full Document

Dependra Nath Basu vs Eastern Railways & Ors on 27 July, 2011

Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that two applications namely an 4 application for injunction and an application for vacating an ad interim order of injunction were disposed of, may be by a single order, one appeal against the said order is not competent. According to him when two applications are disposed of there should be two independent appeals which should be filed and a single appeal is not entertainable. He succinctly argues that Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code postulates that an appeal shall lie from an order passed under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39 and thus the legislative intent behind incorporating comma after each sub-rule of Order 39 is that against an order passed under each of such Rule of Order 39, an independent appeal lies. He further argues that while interpreting the provision of the statute the court should not be swayed by the sympathy and relies upon a judgment in case of Omprakash & Ors. Vs. Radhacharan reported in 2009 (3) ICC 48 (SC).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - H Tandon - Full Document

Saroja Chandrasekar vs The Union Of India

In Omprakash vs. Radhachandran reported in 2009 (15) SCC 66, there is a discussion on Section 15 of the said Act in the context of the distinction sought to be pleaded between the self-acquired property and a property inherited by a woman. The law was silent with regard to such distinction for a self-acquired property of a woman. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous. It, thus, observed that the normal rule of succession intestate, as provided by the statute, would operate.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rekha Oberoi vs Amit Oberoi on 14 May, 2024

65. Merely because a case appears to be hard, it cannot permit the invocation of a different interpretation of a statutory provision which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle of law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous as observed by the Apex Court in Omprakash vs Radhacharan, (2009) 15 SCC
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document
1   2 3 Next