Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (3.78 seconds)
Documents citing Bava G. Gopalaswami Mudaliar vs V.S. Thyagaraja Mudaliar And Ors. on 28 November, 1950

V.S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar vs Bava C. Chokkappa Mudaliar And Ors. on 14 February, 1974

It is not enough to show that the last holder held the office as hereditary trustee. There can be no dispute about that; and there can be no need to determine that, because the dispute is only who is entitled to succeed to the hereditary office. Obviously a claim to succeed to the office under such circumstances would fall outside the scope of Section 57(b)." It is rather interesting to see that the High Court's decision in the present case which was reported in Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thayagaraja Mudaliar 1951 (1) M.L.J. 248 was cited before the court. But the learned Judge declined to follow it on the ground that it was unhelpful in deciding the question at issue. Certain elements of distinction between the provisions of Section 84 of the Act and Section 57(b) of the 1951 Act were suggested. But, with respect, we must say there is really no difference. The dispute about succession to an admittedly hereditary office is as much outside the scope of Section 84(1) of the Act as of Section 57(b) of the 1951 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - D G Palekar - Full Document

C.R.Ratan vs The Commissioner on 12 May, 2011

It is not enough to show that the last holder held the office as hereditary trustee. There can be no dispute about that; and there can be no need to determine that, because the dispute is only who is entitled to succeed to the hereditary office. Obviously a claim to succeed to the office under such circumstances would fall outside the scope of Section 57(b). It is rather interesting to see that the High Courts decision in the present case which was reported in Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thyagaraja Mudaliar2 was cited before the Court. But the learned Judge declined to follow it on the ground that it was unhelpful in deciding the question at issue. Certain elements of distinction between the provisions of Section 84 of the Act and Section 57(b) of the 1951 Act were suggested. But, with respect, we must say there is really no difference. The dispute about succession to an admittedly hereditary office is as much outside the scope of Section 84(1) of the Act as of Section 57(b) of the 1951 Act.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Bava C. Chokkappa Mudaliar & Ors vs Bava C. Chokkappa Mudaliar & Ors on 14 February, 1974

"It is hot enough to show that the last holder held the office as hereditary trustee. There can be no dispute about that; and-there can be no need to determine that, because the dispute is only who is entitled to succeed to the hereditary office. Obviously a claim to succeed to the office under such circumstances would fall outside the scope of section 57(b)." It is rather interesting to see that the High Court's decision in the present case which was reported in Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thayagaraja Mudaliar (2) was cited before the court. But the learned Judge declined to follow it on the ground that it was unhelpful in deciding the question at issue. Certain elements of distinction between the provisions of section 84 of the Act and Section 57(b) of the 1951 Act were suggested. But, with respect, we must say there is really no difference. The dispute about succession to an admittedly hereditary office is as much outside the scope of section 84(1) of the Act as of section 57(b) of the 1951 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1