Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Succession and Inheritance Uncategorized

Khushi Ram & Ors v. Nawal Singh & Ors (2021) SCC SC 128

ISSUE:

Whether the consent decree required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908?

Whether the respondents, being heirs from Smt. Jagno's parental side, were considered strangers, thereby invalidating the family settlement?

RULE:

A consent decree that acknowledges or confirms a pre-existing right arising from a family settlement does not require registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

Additionally, heirs from a married woman's parental side are not deemed strangers concerning succession matters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, allowing for valid family settlements with such heirs.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Joint Hindu Family and Coparcenary System

Champabai Darshrathsing Pardeshi & ors. v. Shamkuwarbai Gajrajsing Pardeshi & anr. 2016(2) ALL MR 848

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiffs (respondents) were entitled to separate shares by way of partition though they were married before 1994 under Succession Act, 1956 in view of Maharashtra Amendment 1994?

RULE:

Married daughters do not qualify for coparcenary rights under the Maharashtra amendment. Moreover, the 1994 amendment to Hindu Succession Act, (Maharashtra Amendment) granting equal coparcenary rights to daughters, applies only if the father (coparcener) was alive on or after June 22, 1994.

The amendment in respect of such a right to the extent of share in a dwelling house cannot have retrospective application and the right in a dwelling house cannot be translated into action unless the male heir would give up possession of the same.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Succession and Inheritance

Bhanwar Singh v. Puran(2008) 3 SCC 87

ISSUE:

Whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply to the facts of this case?

Whether Bhanwar Singh acquired a birthright interest in the property after his birth in 1977?

RULE:

According to Section 19, if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property per capita and not per stirpes.

Each one of them is entitled to alienate their share, particularly when different properties were allotted in their favor.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Succession and Inheritance

Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnuswamy (2022) SCC SC 72

ISSUE:

Whether Marappa Gounder’s property was self-acquired or a joint family property?

Whether his only daughter could inherit the property under Hindu law prevailing before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if the property was self-acquired?

Whether after his daughter’s death without any issue, the property would devolve by inheritance or survivorship?

RULE:

A sole daughter is entitled to inherit her father's self-acquired property if he dies intestate, even before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

However, upon the daughter's death intestate and issueless, the property devolves upon her father's heirs as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Act.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Mediation and Negotiation

M Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das (Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of (2010) SC Order dated March 8, 2019

ISSUE:

Whether the court can refer the dispute with regards to ownership of a piece of land between the Hindu community and Muslim Community in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

RULE:

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives the power to the court to refer a dispute to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement or mediation if it is of the opinion that there are elements of settlement between the parties.

Order I Rule 8 and Order 23 Rule 3B of Code of Civil Procedure overlooks representative suits and requires that all parties are to be notified of any compromise, which is subject to the court’s approval, in order to maintain fairness.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Finality of Arbitral Awards

M Anasuya Devi & Anr v. M Manik Reddy & Ors, (2003) 8 SCC 565

ISSUE:

Whether the objections with respect to stamp duty and registration of arbitral award can be raised while filing a Section 34 application for setting aside the award or should it be raised only after a Section 36 application has been filed for enforcement of the arbitral award?

RULE:

The lack of paying the stamp duty and registering the arbitral award does not affect the parties’ right to challenge the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and will be relevant only when the application to enforce the award under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 is filed.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Finality of Arbitral Awards

MTNL v. Siemens Public Communication Network (2005) 1 Arb LR 369

ISSUE:

Whether an arbitral award devoid of a date on it along with lack of reasons behind a missing signature of one of the arbitrators on the award violation Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thus rendering the arbitral award invalid?

RULE:

An arbitral award passed by an arbitral tribunal must mention the reasons behind the award, requires signatures of all arbitrators and reasons behind lack of an arbitrator’s signature under Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

An arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it goes against the provisions of Part 1, including Section 31.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Finality of Arbitral Awards

Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Prestress Poducts (2003) 2 Arb LR 624

ISSUE:

What is the standard of review that the judiciary should apply to decide a challenge application to the validity of an arbitral award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

RULE:

An arbitral award cannot be reviewed by the court under Section 34 merely on the ground that the court’s opinion on the law or facts is different. The power under Section 34 is not an appellate award and is restricted to the grounds mentioned in the Act.

An arbitrator is not empowered to presume agreements and must rely on the agreements explicitly agreed on by the parties to the dispute to avoid potential challenges to the award on the ground of misinterpretation of the contractual terms.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Finality of Arbitral Awards

Pooran Chand Nangia v. National Fertilizers Ltd, 2003 (8) SCC 245

ISSUE:

Whether the Deputy General Manager had sufficient jurisdiction to be a part of the arbitration?

Whether an arbitral award, once accepted can be challenged again on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator?

RULE:

A party to arbitration who accepts the award passed by the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal cannot challenge the same on grounds that they had agreed to prior the arbitration proceedings.

Any objections to the award must be filed by the aggrieved party prior to accepting the award in light of the arbitration principles.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Finality of Arbitral Awards

Union of India v. M/S G.S. Atwal & Co (Asansole) 1996 SCC (3) 568

ISSUE:

Whether an arbitrator is empowered and has jurisdiction to independently widen the scope of reference of an arbitration dispute under the Arbitration Act, 1940?

RULE:

An arbitration agreement determines the scope and extent of the power and jurisdiction of an arbitrator and independent actions done by the arbitrator without prior consent of the parties is not valid.

The rule of acquiescence does not apply when the parties to the dispute participate in the arbitration proceedings post submitting their objections with respect to the arbitrator breaching the scope of the jurisdiction.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here