Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.09 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshmamma (Dead) And Anr. vs P.S. Subramanyam on 12 October, 1938

Kadim Kusuma And Ors. vs Kadiam Appachiamma And Anr. on 4 July, 1984

It is no doubt true as held in Lakshmamma v. Subramanyam (supra) that nomination of a person who is not a dependent is not invalid unless there is a prohibition under the relevant Provident Fund Rules and a mere dependent has no right unless he is nominated. Accordingly I hold that the fund vests in the dependent-nominee under S. 3(2) of the Act and payable to the nominee under S. 4(1) he or she is entitled to receive the same and the said fund would not become the estate of the subscriber on his death.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mabel Head vs Miss Kathleen Guest on 23 February, 1944

In Lakshmamma v. Subramanyam (1939) A.I.R. Mad 489 there was a contest between a woman who claimed the Provident Fund amount of a depositor on his death as his widow, and the depositor's son. It was found that she had not been legally married to the depositor. She had been nominated by the depositor as the person entitled to receive the amount. It was held that she was entitled to receive the amount in preference to the son of the depositor. It was a clear case in which a non-dependent who had been nominated by the depositor was held entitled to the amount in preference to the son who was a dependent within the meaning of the Act. The trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the son on the ground that he was a dependent within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act, and the nomination in favour of the mistress must be treated as an unlawful nomination. In overruling his contention, Burn J. observed (p. 490) :
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

B. Venkitalakshmi Ammal vs G. Chakrapani Ayyangar on 19 December, 1946

7. For the respondent, it was said that the decisions of this Court in Lakshmamma v. Subramanyam (1939) 1 M.L.J. 620 and Sitaramaswami v. Venkatarama Rao (1944) 1 M.L.J. 198 support this contention in some way or other. In the first of these decisions, there was a dispute in respect of a Provident Fund amount between a person who claimed to be the widow of the deceased subscriber and who was also the person nominated by him as his successor to claim the amount and a son of the deceased subscriber, who opposed her claim on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of the depositor. The learned Judges held that the widow was entitled to the amount by virtue of the nomination in her favour. They point out that there is no restriction with regard to the persons, in whose favour the nomination can be made and nomination can also be made in favour of a person who is not a dependant. As it was not disputed that there was a valid nomination in favour of the person who claimed to be the widow, she would be entitled to the amount, whether she was in law his. widow or not.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1