Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing Shilpa Aggarwal vs Aviral Mittal & Anr on 9 December, 2009

Anand Raghavan vs State Of Delhi & Anr on 8 July, 2016

69. After discussing five recent and important judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India being (1) Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma, (2000) 3 SCC 14; (2) Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal, (2010) 1 SCC 591; (3) V. Ravi Chandran(2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174; (4) Ruchi Majoo v.Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479 and (5) Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790, the Supreme Court allowed the petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Surya Vadanan vs State Of Tamilnadu & Ors on 27 February, 2015

[12] Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma [13] Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu [14] B's Settlement, In re. B. v. B.,1940 Ch 54: (1951) 1 All ER 949 and McKee v. McKee [15] McKee v. McKee [16] McKee v. McKee [17] McKee v. McKee [18] B's Settlement, In re [19] Kernot v. Kernot, 1965 Ch 217: (1964) 3 WLR 1210: (1964) 3 All ER 339 [20] H. (Infants) , In re, (1966) 1 WLR 381 (Ch & CA) : (1966) 1 All ER 886 (CA) [21] L. (Minors), In re, (1974) 1 WLR 250 : (1974) 1 All ER 913 (CA) [22] L. (Minors), In re, [23] Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu [24] Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde [25] Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde [26] Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma [27] V. Ravi Chandran and Aviral Mittal [28] Dhanwanti Joshi referring to Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw [29] Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw [30] V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India [31] V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India [32] Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 53 - M B Lokur - Full Document

K G vs State Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 November, 2017

17. It is no doubt true that the visit of the mother and the child to India was with the consent of the petitioner. The custody of the child with the mother is not illegal. However, this visit was on the premise of a return to the U.K. in November, 2008 which did not materialize. Once the High Court of Justice has directed that the child be produced, in our considered view, the retention of the child in India would be unlawful though it may not have been illegal at the inception." (emphasis supplied) Shilpa Aggarwal (Ms.) (supra)
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Pooja Malhotra And Others vs Pankaj Malhotra And Another on 10 May, 2012

In the case of Shilpa Aggarwal (supra), where also the facts were quite similar to the present case, the Supreme Court approved the order passed by the Delhi High Court directing the mother who had detained the child in India, to appear before the United Kingdom (UK) Court and it was left for the UK Court to take appropriate decision with regard to the custody of the minor child. In the said case the marriage had taken place in India on 4.11.2003. The husband was already working in UK and both husband and wife acquired the status of permanent residents of UK in 2004 before the birth of the girl child Elina on 20.2.2006. By birth the child Elina acquired British citizenship and was holder of a British passport.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Rohan Rajesh Kothari Thro Poa Rajesh S. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 January, 2024

6.24 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is no longer res integra that even if orders of custody are passed by the Native Country after the child is brought in India, even in that eventuality, keeping in mind the interest and welfare of the child and the nationality of the child, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other Courts have repatriated the minor child back to their Native Country. The Petitioner seeks reliance upon the pronouncements of Shilpa Agarwal Vs Aviral Mittal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 592, Surya Vadanan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 450, Lahari Sakhamuri Vs Sobhan Kodali reported in (2019) 7 SCC 311, Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Y Kogje - Full Document

Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2022

These principles have been referred to as “contrasting principles of law” [Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal, (2010) 1 SCC 591 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 192] but they are not “contrasting” in the sense of one being the opposite of the other but they are contrasting in the sense of being different principles that need to be applied in the facts of a given case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 30 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Sara Bhayaraju vs State Of Telangana on 13 December, 2024

59. The Court may also direct repatriation of the minor child to the country from where he/she may have been removed by a parent or other person; as was directed by this Court in V. Ravi Chandran (2) [V. Ravi Chandran (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 44] and Shilpa Page 17 of 49 PSK,J & NTR,J wp_21751_2024 Aggarwal [Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal, (2010) 1 SCC 591 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 192] cases or refuse to do so as was the position in Sarita Sharma case [Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma, (2000) 3 SCC 14 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 568] . What is important is that so long as the alleged detenu is within the jurisdiction of the High Court no question of its competence to pass appropriate orders arises. The writ court's jurisdiction to make appropriate orders regarding custody arises no sooner it is found that the alleged detenu is within its territorial jurisdiction."
Telangana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Savdas Sukabhai Karavadra vs Heenaben Savdas Karavadra & 4 on 27 November, 2015

After   considering   the  earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Sarita  Sharma vs. Sushil Sharma  reported in  (2000)3 SCC 14; (2)  V. Ravi  Chandran vs. Union of India reported in (2010)1 SCC 174; (3) Shilpa  Aggarwal vs. Aviral Mittal & Ors. reported in (2010)1 SCC 591; Ruchi  Majoo   vs.   Sanjeev   Majoo  reported   in  (2011)6  SCC   479  and  Arathi  Bandi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  reported in  (2013)15 SCC  790, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Vadanan (Supra)  while emphasizing to adhere to the principle of "comity of Courts" in  paras 46 to 56 has observed and held as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next