Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Adarsh Rattan And Ors. vs State Bank Of India, Jalandhar on 27 November, 1986

Jagdish Chandra Trikha vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 24 October, 1997

(25) In the judgment reported as Col. Adarsh Rattan and othersv. State Bank of India Jalandhar (supra) the learned Judge took the view that it was not compulsive to apply for letters of administration and suit claiming a declaration that heirs were owners of the box lying with the Bank and entitled to the sealed box with consequential relief of allowing them to operate the said safe deposit was notbarred. M.M. Punchhi, J. as his Lordship then held as follows in paragraphs 11 and 13:
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Annakili vs B. Lakshmi on 23 July, 2002

7. Arguing for the plaintiff, the learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff has originally filed O.P.No.9 of 1986; that on caveat filed by the defendant, the same was converted into a suit; that one Krishnan Chettiar had seven sons and one daughter; that the said Bangaru Chettiar was one of the sons of Krishnan Chettiar and the plaintiff was his sister; that the immovable property situated at No.49, Perumal Mudali Street, Kondithope exclusively belonged to Bangaru Chettiar, who died on 27.10.1981; that he left behind him his sister, the plaintiff herein, as the only heir; that it is pertinent to note that he died intestate; that the first wife of Bangaru Chettiar was Manthiamma; that on her death, Bangaru Chettiar married Rajamma; that Bangaru Chettiar had no issues either through Manthiamma or Rajamma; that the said Rajamma died in the year 1984 even prior to the filing of the present suit; that the assessment order issued by the Corporation of Madras for the period of 1985-86 in respect of the suit property is filed as Ex.P.3; that Ex.P.4 would evidence the payment of estate duties and is the certificate on discharge in respect of the suit property issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duties; that the contention of the defendant that Bangaru Chettiar had illicit intimacy with Rajammal and grabbed the properties of Bangaru Chettiar was unfounded to the knowledge of the defendant, since Rajammal was the second wife of Bangaru Chettiar; that the defendant claimed that she was the daughter of Bangaru Chettiar through Nagammal was an utter falsehood; that the defendant was an orphan, who was assisting Bangaru Chettiar and Rajamma in domestic affairs; that it is true that they performed the marriage of the defendant; that on the death of the said Rajamma, the defendant forcefully occupied the premises on false pretences; that during the life time of Rajamma, the defendant filed a suit against her claiming the properties of Bangaru Chettiar; that during the pendency of the suit, Rajamma died; that taking advantage of the said situation, the defendant got the possession of the property illegally and has come forward with a plea that she is the daughter of Bangaru Chettiar; that the plaintiff never issued any notice to any Advocate alleging that Bangaru Chettiar has executed a Will in respect of the suit properties; that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application to collect the rents from the tenants; that the same was ordered on 26.2.1986, but the same was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 28.4.1986; that the appeal filed by the plaintiff therefrom was disposed of in February, 1993, wherein the Division Bench directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.300/- per month to the plaintiff, but the defendant has thoroughly disobeyed the order by not making any payment whatsoever; that since she is the only heir of Bangaru Chettiar, Letters of Administration as asked for by the plaintiff has got to be issued in her favour. In support of the contention of the plaintiff, the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions; (1) AIR 1955 MADRAS 411 (In re, T.K.PARTHASARATHI NAIDU, PETITIONER), (2) AIR 1987 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 232 (COL. ADARSH RATTAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, JALANDHAR), and (3) AIR 1964 SC 136 (V 51 C
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Chockalingam - Full Document

Sh. Vinod Magotra vs State on 5 November, 2014

6. During the arguments, counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is also entitled for jewellery articles found in the locker No.288 in Bank of Maharashtra, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi as SC No. 140/2013 Page 4 of 6 per inventory Ex.PW1/9 in respect of the said locker. Counsel for petitioner also filed some judgments to substantiate his submission i.e. Adarsh Rattan And Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1987 P H 232 of Punjab­Haryana High Court, Sharda Chopra And Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1997 MP 196 of Madhya Pradesh High Court and Rama Chakravarty Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, AIR 1991 Cal 128 of Calcutta High Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1