Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 18 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956
Anu Seth & Others vs Rohit Narain Seth & Ors. on 10 August, 2000
10.Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has
laid great emphasis on the fact that both the
appellant and the respondent had been originally
residing in the suit property being the first floor....'
On the other hand ld. counsel for plaintiff relied upon para 13 and 15 of
Anu Seth Vs. Rohit Narain Seth 87 (2000) DLT 486.
National Thermal Power Corporation ... vs Wig Brothers Builders And Engineers ... on 17 April, 2009
In
support of these submissions learned counsel placed
reliance on three reported decisions of this court
reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 642,
"National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Wig
Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd.", 2002 (65) DRJ
146, "Ranbir Yadav Vs. State Bank of India" and 81
(1999) Delhi Law Times 370, "Amrit Kaur Vs. M/s. Om
Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. & Anr." and one
unreported decision in RFA No. 286/2007 "Ramesh
Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar Basu" decided on
19/11/07. Mr. Sindhwani, however, did not dispute the
Civil Suit no. 247/2004 Page 27 of 36
legal position that the Court can suo moto also invoke
the provisions RFA 179/2008 Page 24 of 40 of Order
1 Rule 10 CPC if it is felt that a necessary party
without whom there can be no effective adjudication
of the controversy between the parties has not been
impleaded and also that this power can be invoked
even by the appellate Court. While not disputing this
position the learned counsel, however, kept on
maintaining that the defendant's husband was not at
all a necessary party.
Shri Ramesh Kumar Handoo And Anr. vs Shri Binay Kumar Basu on 19 November, 2007
In
support of these submissions learned counsel placed
reliance on three reported decisions of this court
reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 642,
"National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Wig
Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd.", 2002 (65) DRJ
146, "Ranbir Yadav Vs. State Bank of India" and 81
(1999) Delhi Law Times 370, "Amrit Kaur Vs. M/s. Om
Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. & Anr." and one
unreported decision in RFA No. 286/2007 "Ramesh
Kumar Handoo Vs. Binay Kumar Basu" decided on
19/11/07. Mr. Sindhwani, however, did not dispute the
Civil Suit no. 247/2004 Page 27 of 36
legal position that the Court can suo moto also invoke
the provisions RFA 179/2008 Page 24 of 40 of Order
1 Rule 10 CPC if it is felt that a necessary party
without whom there can be no effective adjudication
of the controversy between the parties has not been
impleaded and also that this power can be invoked
even by the appellate Court. While not disputing this
position the learned counsel, however, kept on
maintaining that the defendant's husband was not at
all a necessary party.
Shammi Nagpal vs Sudhir Nagpal, Director Of Hotel ... on 6 May, 2008
In this regard I may
refer to the vies of Bombay High Court in a judgment
which was cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs
before me. That judgment is reported as 2008 (5)
Bom C R 149, "Shammi Nagpal Vs. Sudhir Nagpal".
Komalam Amma vs Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai & Ors on 14 November, 2008
He further relies upon Komalam Amma Vs. Kumara Pillai
Raghavan Pillai AIR 2009 SC 636 wherein para 11 and 12 it is held:
S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
'Learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submitted
that the Supreme Court did not go to the extent of
holding that daughterinlaw had no right to stay in
the house belonging to parents inlaw even if it was
matrimonial home. His submission was that in the
aforesaid judgment it was not decided as to whether
the house in question was a matrimonial home and
if it was so, whether daughterinlaw had right to stay
in the said house or not. He pleaded that in the
absence of authoritative pronouncement on this
aspect by the Supreme Court, decision in the case of
Taruna Batra, (supra) should prevail. I am afraid and
it is difficult to read the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the manner learned counsel for the plaintiff
wants me to read. Ratio of this case is clear,
namely, the daughterinlaw has no legal right to stay
in the house which belongs to her parentsinlaw.'
Para 18 of this judgment further states that:
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And Others on 14 March, 2008
In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben
Ashokbhai Patel and Ors., III (2008) SLT 630=III
(2008) CLT 147 (SC)=2008 (4) SCC 649, the
Supreme Court while observing that the Domestic
Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a
wife, in that, she not only acquires a right to be
maintained, but also thereunder acquires a right of
residence, clarified that the said right as per the
legislation extends to joint properties in which the
husband has a share. In para18 of the said
judgment, it was stated thus :