Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Promode Kumar Roy vs Sephalika Dutta on 13 August, 1956
26. The executors rely on a Division Bench judgment reported at AIR 1957 Cal
631 (Promode Kumar Roy v. Sephalika Dutta) and a Supreme Court
decision reported at (1955) 2 SCR 270 (Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala
Dassi), which has been referred to in the cited Division Bench judgment of
this Court. The two unexceptionable propositions laid down in the Division
Bench judgment are that the grounds under the Explanation to Section
263 of the Act of 1925 are exhaustive as to what may be just cause to
revoke a grant; and, that despite a breach of some limb of the Explanation,
it is not necessary that the grant has to be revoked unless a prima facie
case touching upon the validity or authenticity of the Will is made out.
Anil Behari Ghosh vs Smt. Latika Bala Dassi And Others on 15 April, 1955
26. The executors rely on a Division Bench judgment reported at AIR 1957 Cal
631 (Promode Kumar Roy v. Sephalika Dutta) and a Supreme Court
decision reported at (1955) 2 SCR 270 (Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala
Dassi), which has been referred to in the cited Division Bench judgment of
this Court. The two unexceptionable propositions laid down in the Division
Bench judgment are that the grounds under the Explanation to Section
263 of the Act of 1925 are exhaustive as to what may be just cause to
revoke a grant; and, that despite a breach of some limb of the Explanation,
it is not necessary that the grant has to be revoked unless a prima facie
case touching upon the validity or authenticity of the Will is made out.
Mokashadayini Dassi And Ors. vs Karnadhar Mandal on 28 July, 1914
The Supreme Court held in Anil Behari
Ghosh that the relevant observation in Mokashadayini's case was not
intended to be of universal application. The dictum in Anil Behari Ghosh is
spread over a long passage at paragraph 16 of the report:
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
1