Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Krishan Kumar Gaba vs Delhi Secretariat on 24 March, 2026 cites

Shri Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr vs Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr on 16 August, 2000

(ii) In Vishin Khanchandani v. Vidya Khanchandani [AIR 2000 SC 747], a similar interpretation was given to the role of a nominee with respect to Section 6 of the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1956.Therefore, until this time, though the provisions in respect of nomination in each statute like insurance, government savings, cooperative societies etc. may be worded differently, the legal position of a nominee has been accepted to be that of a trustee and is not considered to be any kind of testamentary succession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 165 - Full Document

Shipra Sengupta vs Mridul Sengupta & Ors on 20 August, 2009

(iii) In Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta [(2009) 10 SCC 680],where it was held that the position of nomination is no longer res integra and the nominee is entitled to receive the benefit, but the amount so received is to be distributed JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 10 according to the laws of succession among the legal heirs.(See:"Nomination process,therefore, does not override the succession laws." CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 107 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 February, 1991

Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors . 8 February, 1991 SCR (1) 282, wherein the Apex court dealt with case of the death of a Railway employee, dispute arose among his wife, sons, daughters and brother for the family pension, gratuity and other emoluments. The brother of the deceased employee filed a civil suit in-the court of Sub judge for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants.---the wife, sons and daughter-from claiming or receiving any monetary benefits from the Railway Administration, contending that by a will dated 9.9.1984 of the deceased employee, he was entitled to receive the benefits to the deceased employee's widow. The Railway Authority did not pay any amount, as an injunction had been issued by the Civil Court. The appellants there-upon made an application before this Tribunal for a direction for the release of the amounts on the grounds that the will was a forged one, and the beneficiary was not entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The Tribunal held that since the dispute related to rival claims based on title arising from relationship, it had no jurisdiction to decide the same. It also directed transfer of the case to the Civil Court for trial. In the appeal to Apex Court on the question was: whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - K N Singh - Full Document

Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958

Referring to the above preposition, the Apex Court in RAZIA BEGUM v. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM &OTHERS (1959(1) SCR 1111 ) held that in order fora party may be added as a defendant in the suit, he should have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation-legal interest not as distinguished from an equitable interest, but an interest that the law recognizes. The question of the addition of parties under 0.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 442 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1