Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)

Joginder Pal vs Indian Red Cross Society & Ors on 29 September, 2000

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K. Subrahmanyam, submits that one of the circumstances, under which a certificate once issued can be revoked, stipulated under Section 383 of the Act is the existence of decree which, in effect, disentitles the holder of a certificate for the right thereunder. He contends that the declaratory decree in O.S. No. 209 of 1996 brings about such a circumstances and, as such, there was no justification for the learned District Judge in refusing to revoke the certificate. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross Society and Ors. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 23 - S N Variava - Full Document

Mulukh Raj Sharma vs Raj Narain Sharma And Ors. on 1 May, 1957

10. Section 384 of the Act fell for consideration before various High Courts, from 1920 onwards. The High Courts of Bombay, Lahore, Patna and Allahabad took the view that an order refusing the revoke a certificate is also appealable. All these decisions were dealt with by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Mulukh Raj's case (supra). It was held therein that in all the cases, which were decided earlier, the applications filed under Section 383 of the Act were for dual purposes viz., for grant of a Succession Certificate and revocation of an existing certificate and those situations cannot be compared to cases where the applications are filed exclusively for revocation of certificates. The same ratio applies to this case also. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of Succession Certificate issued in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There is no corresponding prayer, for issuance of a certificate in her favour. In that view of the matter, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 384 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1