Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.56 seconds)Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar on 1 February, 2018
The opinion expressed in "Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. V. Amar is partly overruled to the extent it is contrary to this decision........"
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Assistant Excise Commissioner, ... vs Esthappan Cherian on 6 September, 2021
23. In the present case, however, the amendment by virtue of the Circular dated 5.11.2009 is undoubtedly a "Delegated Legislation" brought about under authority of the Central Government, and not directly by Legislature itself. The same can therefore be not regarded as having any "Retrospective" effect apart from the date of its operation as specifically mentioned therein i.e. 21.8.2019, and is therefore squarely covered by the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Opposite Parties, especially in "Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottyam and Ors. Vs. Esthappan Cherian and Ors" (supra) in which it had been categorically noted in relation to notifications of Rules created by way of "Delegated" authority, that the same could not be "Retrospective in nature, unless the same express a clear or manifest intention to the contrary.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr on 12 October, 2011
27) In the present case, no doubt, suit for partition was filed in the year 2002. However, during the pendency of this suit, Section 6 of the Act was amended as the decree was passed by the trial court only in the year 2007. Thus, the rights of the appellants got crystallised in the year 2005 and this event should have been kept in mind by the trial court as well as by the High Court. This Court in 'Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. V. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.', held that the rights of daughters in coparcenary property as per the amended S.6 are not lost merely because a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit. So far as partition suits are concerned, the partition becomes final only on the passing of a final decree. Where such situation arises, the preliminary decree would have to be amended taking into account the change in the law by the amendment of 2005."
The Employees Provident Fund ... vs Sunil Kumar B on 4 November, 2022
21. The same principal was followed by the Apex Court in its judgment in "Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Sunil Kumar and Ors." pronounced on 4.11.2022.
Section 5 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015
In view of the aforesaid discussion and answer, we overrule the views to the contrary expressed in "Prakash Vs. Phulavati" and "Mangammal V. T.B. Raju * Ors.".
Union Of India vs M/S G.S. Chatha Rice Mills on 23 September, 2020
In "Union of India and Ors. Vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Ors.", the Apex Court held that a notification enhancing tariff on goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, which was issued on 16.2.2019, would be applicable only from that date and not retrospectively. Although, two separate opinions were given by the Members of the Supreme Court Bench, on one side by Hon'ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (as his Lordship then was), alongwith Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Indu Malhotra, and the other reasoning separately was given by Hon'ble Justice Mr. K.M. Joseph, but in both the Civil Appeals filed on behalf of the Union of India which had contended that the enhanced custom duty by virtue of the notification would be 'Retrospective in nature' and not 'Prospective', were dismissed.
Geeta Pandey vs Shekhar Pandey on 6 September, 2016
In the case of Shri Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari (supra), the full Bench of the Bombay High Court had set aside the decision of its Division Bench which had held that the Section 6 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act which curtails and restricted, entitlement of daughters born prior to 9.9.2005, (i.e. prior to amendment of 2005) was not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in "G. Shekhar Vs. Geeta".
1