Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing Debendra Nath Dutt And Banku Behary ... vs Administrator-General Of Bengal on 23 March, 1906

Manubhai Chunilal vs The General Accident Fire And Life ... on 23 March, 1936

In spite of the rule, however, in Calcutta the bond is being taken in the name of the Chief Justice as being more in accordance with the statutory provision contained in the Indian Succession Act, the Chief Justice being considered the representative of the High Court which, so far as its original jurisdiction is concerned, is the District Court referred to in the section, and it was held in the case of Debendra Nath Dutt and Banku Behary Banerjee V. Administrator-General of Bengal (1906) I.L.R. 33 Cal. 713 that the practice was not irregular. In that case it was argued as here that the bond ought not to have been taken in the name of the Chief Justice. Dealing with that contention, Maclean C. J. observed as follows (p. 738) :-
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo vs Jagat Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh on 4 December, 1956

It is well to remember, however, that appeal against the judgment of the High Court revoking the probate is pending in the Supreme Court. The question is whether the decree, in the circumstances, was a nullity. The loss of his character as, legatee in consequence of the reversal of the order granting probate between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment had not the effect of arresting the prosecution of the suit and did not nullify the decree as a whole. At best it may be regarded as tantamount to his civil death as regards the present litigation. As laid down in Rule 6 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure the death of any party after the conclusion of the hearing but before the pronouncement of " the judgment will not render the decree invalid.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adarsh Rattan And Ors. vs State Bank Of India, Jalandhar on 27 November, 1986

It was also urged on the strength of Debendra Nath Dutt v. Administrator-General of Bengal, (1908) ILR 35 Cal 955, a judgment of the Privy Council, that the obtaining of letters of administration by the next of kin of the deceased was a compulsive necessity as high value was attached thereto. In that case, one-Cowie described by their Lordships of the Privy Council as a 'rogue' and an 'imposter' was granted letters of administration which were later revoked. The question arose whether the deals done by him while he was the administrator could be protected in law. Their Lordships took the view that they were protected and the receipts issued by him were valid discharges of all debtors for all moneys received by him as an administrator. Nobody can dispute that letters of administration, if granted to an administrator, are advantageous from many points of view but that by itself is not enough to match the choice exercisable by a Hindu on conjoint reading of Ss. 212 and 218.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Sarada Kanta Das vs Gobinda Mohan Das And Maitunnissa Bibi on 9 June, 1910

At any rule, it is obvious that, if the petitioner were not allowed to intervene, he would be driven to have recourse to a separate proceeding for revocation of probate, and this, in our opinion, he ought not to be compelled to do. It has also been suggested that the appellants may not be affected one way or the other by the grant or revocation of the probate, and reference has been made in this connection to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Debendra Nath Dutt v. Administrator-General of Bengal 35 I.A. 109 : 12 C.W.N. 802 (P.C.) : 18 M.L.J. 367 : 10 Bom. L.R. 648 : 8 C.L.J. 94 : 35 C. 955.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next