Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Rukshmaniben Wd/O. Vasantlal Motilal vs Vadilal Narayandas Jadawala And Anr. on 17 September, 1993
cites
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pothukutchi Appa Rao And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India In Council ... on 28 September, 1937
11. In Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors. , after adverting to the pronouncements of the Judicial Committee referred to above, there was also a reference to the pronouncement of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Pothukutchi Appa Rao and Ors. v. Secretary of State AIR 1938 Madras 193 and the legal position was summed up as follows:
Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd vs Union Of India on 28 October, 1969
In Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India , there was a reference to the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and Ors. and the proposition was expressed as follows:
Bolo vs Koklan on 3 July, 1930
In our judgment, there is no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit, and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted: Bolo v. Koklan
M. Ar. Rm. M. Annamalai Chettiar And Ors. vs Al. A.C.T. Solayappa Chettiar And Anr. on 16 January, 1935
In Annamalai Chettiar and Ors. v. A.M.K.C.T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar and Anr. , there was a reference to the pronouncement in Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and Ors. and the question was assessed as follows:
Chunilal Parvatishankar vs Bai Samrath on 17 March, 1914
Under Clause 6, the properties were given to Vasantlal and Narayanlal and by Clause 10 it was provided that if either of them died issueless then, subject to the right of the widow for residence and maintenance out of the said properties, they should go to the other son and his issues. On a proper construction of all the clauses of the Will, it becomes clear that the Testator wanted to give his two sons the properties absolutely, but subject to the condition that if any one of them should the issueless, the properties vested in him should stand divested and vest in the surviving son and his issues. We do not find any impediment in giving effect to the dominant intention of the Testator as above. A Will containing similar terms - except for the variation that instead of 'issue', 'male issue' was found in the Will - came up for consideration before Privy Council in Chunilal Parvatishankar v. Bai Samrath (1914) XVI BLR 366, and it was held that looking at the whole Will, on the death of one of the two sons leaving no male issue, the surviving son put the property appertaining to the share of the deceased son.
Indira Rani Ghose vs Akhoy Kumar Ghose on 13 October, 1932
This pronouncement of the Privy Council in Indira Rani Ghose v. Akhoy Kumar Ghose (1933) XXXV BLR 211, is also to the same effect.