Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd on 26 March, 1965
In paragraph-29 of the said judgment by referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v. Seth Govindram Sugar
Mills [AIR 1966 SC 24], it was extracted that:
Budhi Jena vs Dhobai Naik And Anr. on 3 September, 1957
"The decision of the Orissa High Court in Budhi Jena v. Dhobai
Naik followed the decision of the Madras High Court in V.M.N.
Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, wherein
Satyanarayana Rao J. observed :
V.M.N. Radha Ammal vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 December, 1949
"The decision of the Orissa High Court in Budhi Jena v. Dhobai
Naik followed the decision of the Madras High Court in V.M.N.
Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, wherein
Satyanarayana Rao J. observed :
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the
1st respondent deleted the words "except married daughters" in the end of
para 1.2 (a) of the Circular with effect from 14.02.2018 and informed the
respondents No.2 and 3 by letters of the same date. He also relied upon the
judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sujatha Sharma
(2 supra) and submitted that in terms of the said decision the 2nd petitioner
i.e. the wife of late Pavan Mohanlal Shah being the eldest member of the
family HUF could be the Karta and not the deponent of the writ petition.
The deponent of the writ affidavit was not a party to the writ petition in her
individual capacity and she was not the eldest member of the family and as
such she was not having any right to represent the 1st petitioner as its Karta
and prayed to dismiss the writ petition with costs.