Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
K.Kailasamoorthy vs N.Indiradevi ... Plaintiff / 1St on 21 November, 2023 cites

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020

15.4. Though the learned Senior Counsel would seek to rely upon the another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Derha v. Visha & another, made in Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2010 dated 01.09.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had applied the law as it stood prior to the enactment of Act 39 of 2005, we do not think we can safely take the judgment to be a precedent on the question of the right of a daughter as per the Amending Act 39 of 2005, since we do not find any reference to the Amending Act or the judgment in Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma, in the said case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 245 - A Mishra - Full Document

The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs P.L. Karuppan Chettiar on 1 February, 1978

The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee including counsel's fee of Rs. 500. This judgment was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok kumar, reported in 1987 (1) SCC 204, and the Appeal against the judgment in The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, v. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar, was also eventually dismissed and the same is reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 580. 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.562 of 2017 14.2. In view of the above, categorical pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench of this Court, the conclusion of the learned District Judge regarding the character of properties in the hands of Kandhasamy which were allotted to him at a partition that took place on 29.07.1959 between him and his brothers would be only ancestral and not self-acquired. Point No.2:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar on 11 December, 1986

The Revenue will pay the costs of the assessee including counsel's fee of Rs. 500. This judgment was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok kumar, reported in 1987 (1) SCC 204, and the Appeal against the judgment in The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, v. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar, was also eventually dismissed and the same is reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 580. 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.562 of 2017 14.2. In view of the above, categorical pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench of this Court, the conclusion of the learned District Judge regarding the character of properties in the hands of Kandhasamy which were allotted to him at a partition that took place on 29.07.1959 between him and his brothers would be only ancestral and not self-acquired. Point No.2:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 210 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next