Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.06 seconds)Section 12 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
Sri Narayan Bal And Others vs Sri Sridhar Sutar And Others on 29 January, 1996
In view of the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court (supra) and when it is very much
clear that the respondent in/question is a Joint
Hindu family property, it may not be necessary
for the 1st defendant to seek prior permission
of the Court before alienating the suit
property. In that view of the matter, the
reasoning assigned by the Trial Court in para-
35 of the Judgment that the1st defendant has
not obtained any permission from the
competent authority to execute the sale deed
and sold the properties of the minor plaintiffs,
appears to be without reference to Sections 6
and 12 of the Act. Moreover, in the case, on
hand, the suit property Item No.1 is not
exclusively available to the plaintiffs since they
are minor children. For the welfare of the
minor children, the 1st defendant has sold the
suit property in favour of the 2nd defendant. In
the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned Judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court is set-aside. "
Article 60 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tukaram vs Sambhaji And Others on 24 October, 1997
22. Issue No.7: The suit is filed for
Partition and Separate Possession of suit property as
described in plaint. Hence, benefit of citation
reported in ILR 1998 Kar.681 (Sri Tukaram vs. Sri
Sambhaji & Ors.) cannot be availed. What are the
details of other properties, is not produced and this
Issue is answered in the negative.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
The written statement of defendant No.5 is
signed by Special Power of Attorney. This P.W.1 in
the oral evidence has indeed stated about the
partition whereby has claimed only to the extent as
per suit property. The remaining extent according to
him belonged to other branches of the family. The
defendant No.1, defendant No.2 as Karta, have
executed the G.P.A. and thereby the sale transaction
have taken place. The right of the minor in the Joint
61 O.S.No.8580/2006
Family property is only of undivided interest. At this
stage it is necessary to refer the citations reported in
2012(1) SCC page 656 {Suraj Lamp and Industries Private
Limited (2) Through Director vs. State of Haryana and
Another} wherein it has been held as under: