Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Muljibhai Naranbhai Makwana vs Na on 14 November, 2022 cites

Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo on 13 May, 2011

Infact, a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.Annapoorni's case referred to supra had also exercised powers under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent though it was a case where the petitioner was residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court but that case was in respect of a child custody matter. Though it was a child custody matter, the logic behind the applicability of Page 20 of 28 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:15:26 IST 2022 C/FA/1024/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2022 Clause 17 of the Letters Patent by this Court was also followed in the said decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 154 - T S Thakur - Full Document

G.Nityanandam vs Tmt.D.Saritha on 16 April, 2013

The only reason for holding that the said petition was not maintainable by the learned Single Judge in the reported decision of G.Nithyanandam's case referred to supra was that under the Guardians and Wards Act, a person cannot be appointed as a legal guardian for a mentally Page 18 of 28 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:15:26 IST 2022 C/FA/1024/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2022 retarded person. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the reason for return of the Original Petition filed by this petitioner under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent seeking for appointment of a legal Guardian for a mentally retarded person by the Registry is erroneous.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - R Sudhakar - Full Document
1   2 Next