Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)The Companies Act, 2013
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur on 7 November, 2008
"It is greatly to be hoped that the courts will resist the temptation to
develop detailed and restrictive rules as to habitual residence, which might
make it as technical a term of art as common law domicile. The facts and
circumstances of each case should continue to be assessed without resort to
presumptions or presuppositions." Although that decision was made in the
different context of section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings
Act i9?3, I follow the judgment of Bush J. in Kapur v. Kapur [1984]
F.L.R 920 in holding that there is no real distinction between
ordinary residence and habitual residence.
Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo on 13 May, 2011
In Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011) 6 SCC 479 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a
petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 on the basis that the minor was an
'ordinary resident' of New Delhi. At paragraphs 29 and 30, the Court also considered
the meaning of the word 'resident'. In this regard the Court stated as follows:
Jagir Kaur & Another vs Jaswant Singh on 13 February, 1963
In Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ
413] this Court was dealing with a case under Section 488 CrPC and the
question of jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition for maintenance.
The Court noticed a near unanimity of opinion as to what is meant by the
use of the word "resides" appearing in the provision and held that
"resides" implied something more than a flying visit to, or casual
stay at a particular place. The legal position was summed up in the
following words: (AIR p. 1524, para 8)
"8. ... Having regard to the object sought to be achieved, the meaning
implicit in the words used, and the construction placed by decided cases
thereon, we would define the word 'resides' thus: a person resides in a
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 00:12:22 :::
kpd 27 / 31 ARBAP-49-2017-PD.doc
place if he through choice makes it his abode permanently or even
temporarily; whether a person has chosen to make a particular place
his abode depends upon the facts of each case."
Kuldip Nayar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006
In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India [(2006) 7 SCC 1] the
expression "ordinary residence" as used in the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 fell for interpretation. This Court observed: (SCC p. 96,
paras 243-46)
"243.
Sandip Shankarlal Kedia vs Pooja Kedia on 29 April, 2013
In Sandip Shankarlal Kedia, supra, this
Court held that the wife habitually resided in Dubai, inter alia, because she was a
Director of three companies in Dubai and has businesses in Dubai.
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kedar Pandey vs Narain Bikram Sah on 15 April, 1965
In support of his submission based on domicile, the learned Advocate for the
Applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah reported in AIR 1966 SC 160 , which explains the
concept and meaning of domicile.