Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)Section 202 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Sarvinder Singh vs Dalip Singh & Ors on 2 August, 1996
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision reported in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, . The relevant portions of the said judgment are as under;
Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999
In a latest decision rendered by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge Gorakhpur, the Supreme Court held as under;
Mutharasu Thevar vs Mayandi Thevar And Ors. on 22 February, 1967
16. My attention is also drawn to a decision reported in Mutharasu v. Mayandi, in support of the contention that the Principal has a right to revoke the vakalath given by the agent in favour of the advocate. In the said decision, the Madras High Court has laid down the circumstances as to when an agency becomes irrevocable. The relevant portion is at paras 6 and 7, which reads as follows;
Garapati Venkanna vs Mullapudi Atchutaramanna And Ors. on 14 December, 1937
Even on a reading of the Section, it cannot be said that in the instant case the agent has an interest in the subject matter of the agency. My attention was drawn to a decision of Venkata Subba Rao J. in Venkanna V. Achutaramanna, AIR 1938 Madras 542, where the learned Judge says that "the principle of Section 202 applies only to cases where authority is given for the purpose of being a security on the part of the security and not to cases where the interest of the donee arises afterwards and (incidentally;) in such cases, there is no authority coupled with an interest, but an independent authority and an interest subsequently arising." (The underlining (bracketed therein Ed.) is mine).
Administrator Of The Shringeri Math, ... vs Charity Commissioner, Bombay on 13 December, 1962
He has besides large powers of management and disposal, certain proprietary rights over the property of the Math ST Swamiar v. Commissioner.
Thirumalai Pillai And Ors. vs Arunachella Padayachi And Ors. on 15 April, 1925
In Thirumalai v. Arunachella the court held that a succeeding trustee of a trustee who filed a suit and thereafter died during its pendency was not legal representative of the predecessor in office. The court said that where some of the trustees die order retire during the pendency of a suit and new persons are elected to fill their place, it is a case of devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit and the elected persons can be added as parties under Order 22, Rule 10 notwithstanding that the period of limitation for impleading them had expired.
Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
22. To sum up, I find that the Subordinate Judge at Tirupathi has rightly given a finding that the petitioners are necessary and proper parties. But, he went wrong by directing the succeeding Matadhipathi to be impleaded as 81st respondent. He ought to have impleaded him as successor plaintiff matadhipathi. Insofar as the other proposed persons are concerned, they are liable to be impleaded only as defendants. They cannot be impleaded as plaintiffs. The lower Court has committed a manifest error in ordering the successor mahant to be impleaded as 81st defendant whereas allowing the purchasers as plaintiffs as well as the power of attorney agents. Hence, a modified order is liable to be passed in this case. On the strength of the material and the principles laid down by the aforesaid decisions, the successor Matadhipathi is entitled to be impleaded as plaintiff whereas all others viz., purchasers are liable to be impleaded as defendants. Insofar as the validity of the power of attorney and its revocability and the conduct of power of attorney agent and his right to alienate the properties and the title of those purchasers are relegated to trial.