Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Ramish Francis Toppo vs Violet Francis Toppo on 22 August, 1988

Youth Welfare Federation Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 9 October, 1996

34. As regards the vires of Section 10 of the Act, we have already found the provisions of the Section, so far as it discriminates the wife, to be ultra vires of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It is the submission of Mr. L. Ravichander that the Court is not to declare the provisions ultra vires but that it can only recommend, as had been done in T.M. Bashiam v. M. Victor (32 supra), R. Hemalatha v. R. Satyanandam (34 supra), Swapna Ghosh v. Sadananda Ghosh (35 supra) and in Ramesh Francis Toppo v. Violet Francis Toppo (36 supra), to the legislature to take appropriate measures to remedy the situation. I have no hesitation to reject his submission outright. It is too late, after the development of the Constitutional Jurisprudence for nearly, half a century, to contend that Courts are powerless to strike down a statutory provision if it is found to be ultra vires.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997

In the case of Ramesh Toppo v. Violet Toppo.(SB), the Calcutta High Court has observed that -- Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act requires confirmation of a divorce decree passed by a District Judge by a Bench of High Court of not less than three Judges. This needs to be amended as it is violative of Article 15 and of procedural due process for denying procedural reasonableness to Christians.
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Anant S/O. Narayan Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1989

Recent decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in case of Ramish Francis v. Violet Francis, was also brought to our notice. Ratio of that decision is that High Court is free to follow any one of the contradictory decisions of coequal benches of Supreme Court, which, in its opinion, is better in point of law. We are not faced with such an embarrassing situation in this appeal because the conflicting decisions are not of benches of equal strength.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Arani Murali vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 February, 2010

On the other hand, on behalf of the complainant/opposite party reliance have been placed on the following decisions, viz., (i) K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, (ii) Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 305, (iii) Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. N. Narasimahaiah, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1797, (iv) Smt. Shamshad Begum Vs. B. Mohammed, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1355, (v) Ramish Francis Toppo Vs. Violet Francis Toppo, reported AIR 1989 (Cal) 128, (vi) Jaisri Shau Vs. Rajdewan Dubey & Ors., reported in AIR 1982 SC 83, (vii) Syed Mohideen Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr., reported in AIR 1986 (Madras) 188. It has been contended the Learned Court before whom the impugned proceeding is pending has necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A K Roy - Full Document

C.Rajamani vs Rathna Bai on 21 October, 2009

21. Issue Nos.1 and 2 : The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even if the court comes to a conclusion that marriage is null and void, at this juncture, the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. He relied upon a decision reported in Ramish Francis Toppo v. Violet Francis Toppo, AIR 1989 Calcutta 128, in which it is held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Arun Kumar Sinha vs Chandra Kant Sinha @ Chanda on 2 September, 2008

At least, from the pleadings on record, there is hardly any reliable material to draw an inference that the wife of the petitioner had extra-marital sexual intercourse with any named person. A mere assertion of the wife having become pregnant and terminating her pregnancy by itself cannot be conclusive proof of the allegation of adultery. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of -6- Ramesh Farancis Toppos v. Violet Francis Toppo, AIR 1989 Calcutta, 128 wherein it was held that mere allegation that the wife may have freely and had intimate connection with different people does not prove adultery.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charles James Wickins vs Eden Ris Rita Wickins & Another on 14 June, 1991

5. We, on our own, raised certain questions as to the vires of Section 10, Section 17 and some other provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869, which were adverted to, though not finally decided, by two Special Benches of this Court in Swapna Ghosh v. Sadananada Ghosh, and in Ramish Francis Toppo v. Violet Fancis Toppo, . Mr. Chatterjee and Mrs. Mitra the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Wilson De Rose, the learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. Kundu, the learned counsel for the Union of India, have advanced interesting argument on those questions at our request, but have nevertheless advised us not to go into those questions as those were not urged or pressed for decision by or on behalf of any of the parties. We have finally decided to accept the advice as we have thought that debatable questions as to the constitutionality of statutory , provisions should not ordinarily be raked up unless there is any clear and specific challenge to that effect, and unless and until there is such a challenge, the ordinary presumption as to the constitutionality should be allowed to operate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1