Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Ms. N.A. & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 4 January, 2023

Kavita Kharbanda And Others vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 18 November, 2025

5. That it may be pointed that in the aforesaid decision of N.A. (supra), the Guardianship Committee mentioned therein comprised of only the close family members of Ms. K.A., whereas in the present case, it is the Petitioners only who are seeking appointment of Petitioner No.1 as the legal guardian, and allow her to deal with all the moveable and immoveable properties of Shri Surinder Kharbanda. It is pertinent to mention here that Petitioners are the only legal heirs of Shri Surinder Kharbanda, hence, there is no objection on behalf of Petitioners No.2 and 3 (who are sons of Petitioner No.1) for appointment or their mother, i.e. Petitioner No.1 as the legal guardian of Shri Surinder Kharbanda. The present case completely falls under the parens patriae jurisdiction vested in this Hon'ble Court, and the same is evident from the Medical Report dated 09.09.2025, which reflects that Shri Surinder Kharbanda is in a vegetative state. The details of the movable and immovable properties of Shri Surinder Kharbanda are provided below:....(Short note on behalf of the petitioners dated 07.10.2025)
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Gurpreet Kaur Maini vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Others on 18 September, 2024

In a matter titled as 'N.A. and Others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 41', the Delhi High Court was seized of a similar situation where the question before it was whether the High Court can appoint a legal guardian under Section 14 of the 2016 Act. The High Court held that the solemn nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which had repeatedly been recognized by the Supreme Court of India, the parents patriee jurisdiction was vested in the constitutional Courts and holding the case to be falling in the category of exceptional circumstances, it held that the High Court had the power to entertain the petition seeking appointment of a guardian. We are 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 10:41:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123570-DB CWP-20162-2024 (O&M) -16- in agreement with the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court and in the present case, in fact, as has already been noticed, the petitioner already has a judgment in her favour under Section 14 of the 2016 Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, there would be no requirement of the petitioner filing a petition under Order XXXII CPC in view of the judgment passed under Section 14 of the 2016 Act and no objections given by the sons of the petitioner as also the no objection given by the Estate Officer. This Court records its satisfaction that being the legal guardian of her husband, having been appointed by the Competent Courts at Delhi, the petitioner would be authorized to alienate 50% share of her husband in the subject property as has been prayed for in the petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document

Kamal Ramchandani vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 September, 2025

affirming the facts mentioned in the petition. He also proved the copies of medical certificates regarding mental health of Mrs Kusum Ramchandani as exhibit PW1/1, the copy of ownership documents of property is proved as exhibit PW1/2, the copy of general power of attorney is proved as exhibit PW1/3 and the copy of judgment in case titled "Ms N.A. & Ors. v Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., is proved as exhibit PW1/4. The copies of the bank accounts are collectively proved as exhibit PW1/5.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Ramchandani vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 September, 2025

11. The petitioner No. 1 filed affidavit exhibit PW 1/A re- affirming the facts mentioned in the petition. He also proved the copies of medical certificates regarding mental health of Mrs Kusum Ramchandani as exhibit PW1/1, the copy of ownership documents of property is proved as exhibit PW1/2, the copy of general power of attorney is proved as exhibit PW1/3 and the copy of judgment in case titled "Ms N.A. & Ors. v Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., is proved as exhibit PW1/4. The copies of the bank accounts are collectively proved as exhibit PW1/5.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1