Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Smt Mangamma vs Smt Sridevi B on 15 June, 2023 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Dudh Nath Prasad on 4 January, 2000

17. Having read this proviso, it is very clear that the jurisdiction is based on the ordinarily residence of place at the time of death. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BHAGWAN DASS's case, wherein the Apex Court, in Para No.10 of the judgment relied upon the judgment in UNION OF INDIA VS. DUDH NATH PRASAD reported in (2000) 2 SCC 20, wherein while discussing with regard to the word "resides" and "ordinarily resident" discussed that, it is clear that the person, before he can be said to be ordinarily residing at a particular place has to have an intention to stay at that place for a considerable length
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 65 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Km. Rakhi And Another vs Ist Additional District Judge, ... on 5 August, 1999

12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of KM. RAKHI AND ANOTHER VS. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FIROZABAD AND OTHERS reported in (1999) SCC ONLINE ALL 923 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.34, wherein also discussed with regard to the place of entertaining the petition and held that, if the deceased took the treatment in a place where he died, the same cannot constitute territorial jurisdiction.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 26 - D K Seth - Full Document

Surendra Bhatia vs Poonam Bhatia And Ors. on 22 November, 2005

10. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of SURENDRA BHATIA VS. POONAM BHATIA & ORS. reported in 2005 SCC ONLINE RAJ 101 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.21, wherein the Court has discussed with regard to Section 371 of the Act and observed that Section 371 of the Act would clearly manifest that the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition under Section 372 of the Act. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Para No.25, wherein also observed that the plaintiff is entitled under law to get the relief sought for.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Kamal Abrol & Ors on 11 May, 2005

9. The counsel, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BHAGWAN DASS AND ANOTHER VS. KAMAL ABROL AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 11 SCC 66 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.10 with regard to the meaning of the word "ordinarily resident", wherein the Apex Court has observed that, before he can be said to be ordinarily residing at a particular place has to have an intention to stay at that place for a considerable length of time and it would not include a visit of a short or casual presence at that place. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Para No.11, wherein also the Apex Court observed that the word "residence" is generally understood as referring to a person in connection with the place where he lives, and may be defined as one who resides in a place or one who -8- NC: 2023:KHC:20643 CRP No. 222 of 2023 dwells in a place for a considerable period of time as distinguished from one who merely works in a certain locality or comes casually for a visit and the place of work or the place of casual visit are different from the place of "residence".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 41 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1