Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.31 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
In this regard, we may usefully refer to the decision relied upon by the plaintiff reported in the case of Kailash .vs. Nanhku and others ((2005)4 SCC 480) and the relevant paragraphs in the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
In support of his contention that amendment of written statement could be done at any stage if it is necessary for the purpose of determination of real question in controversy between the parties at any stage of the proceedings, learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions reported in Pradeep Singhvi and another .vs. Heero Dhankani and others ((2004) 13 SCC 432), Kailash .vs. Nanhku and others ((2005) 4 SCC 480) and Man Kaur .vs. Hartar Singh Sangha ((2010) 10 SCC 512). Thus, he prayed for order of remand.
G. Narayana Raju vs G. Chamaraju & Others on 19 March, 1968
26. It is the further submission of learned counsel for D4 to D6 that even if the business is standing in the name of any member of the joint family and if that member is the manager of the joint family, unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the co-parcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. Business carried on by D1 in the property cannot be treated as joint family business and the said property remained separate property of D1. Therefore the question of claiming partition does not arise in this case. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in G.Narayana Raju .vs. G.Chamaraju (AIR 1968 SC 1276), Heeralal .vs. Kalyan Mal and others ((1998) 1 SCC 278) and P.S.Sairam .vs. P.S.Rama Rao Pissey ((2004) 11 SCC 320).
P.S. Sairam & Anr vs P.S. Rama Rao Pisey & Ors on 4 February, 2004
26. It is the further submission of learned counsel for D4 to D6 that even if the business is standing in the name of any member of the joint family and if that member is the manager of the joint family, unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the co-parcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. Business carried on by D1 in the property cannot be treated as joint family business and the said property remained separate property of D1. Therefore the question of claiming partition does not arise in this case. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in G.Narayana Raju .vs. G.Chamaraju (AIR 1968 SC 1276), Heeralal .vs. Kalyan Mal and others ((1998) 1 SCC 278) and P.S.Sairam .vs. P.S.Rama Rao Pissey ((2004) 11 SCC 320).
Sushil Kumar Sen vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1975
28. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. The observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975) 1 SCC 774 are pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6)
The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.
State Of Punjab And Another vs Shamlal Murari & Anr on 6 October, 1975
In State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari ((1976) 1 SCC 719) the Court approved in no unmistakable terms the approach of moderating into wholesome directions what is regarded as mandatory on the principle that: (SCC p. 720)
Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice.
Ghanshyam Dass And Others vs Dominion Of India And Others on 20 March, 1984
The principles enunciated in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. When the trial court has chosen to accept the additional written statement of D4, it ought to have accepted the additional written statement of D1 and D2 also and ought to have given opportunity to D1 and D2 to adduce further evidence both oral and documentary. By dismissing I.A.No.226 of 2009 and refusing to receive additional written statement, D1 and D2 were put to irreparable hardship. Therefore, we are of the opinion, procedural law should not stand in its way to do substantial justice. Hence, in the interest of justice and to render substantial justice between the parties, the additional written statement filed by D1 and D2 is to be received and the matter has to be remanded to the trial court.
North Eastern Railway Administration, ... vs Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs on 11 April, 2008
Following the dictum laid down in the said judgment, we are of the view, the trial court may be directed to receive the additional documents subject to the admissibility of the said documents.