Legal Reference Library

In SAVYASACHI K. SAHAI vs Union Of India, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by four applicants who claimed to be the sons of previous Mutawalli or caretakers of the dargah at Amir Khusro Park and, therefore, asserted their right to some construction inside the tikona graveyard park, also known as Amir Khusro park. Mohd Shakeel, Mohd Allauddin and Mohd Mehmood (claiming to be the three sons of the late Mohd Yusuf and the late Mohammed Yunus) and Mohd Nasir (son of Mohd Hakmuddin) had sought review of an order passed by the high court on May 16. Under the said order, the court had observed that the petitioners did not have sufficient documentary evidence to prove their claim and sought a status report from the authorities concerned. What the court said After examining all the submissions and evidence on record, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar held that presumption of possession over an open land always is ...

Employees dismissed from service after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them are also entitled to encashment of ‘Earned/Privilege Leave’ that they had accumulated to their credit over the years, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled. Justice D. Hariparanthaman passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by the dismissed General Manager of Thanjavur District Central Cooperative Bank since he was denied the benefit on the ground that it would be accorded only to those who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judge came to the conclusion after taking a cue from a decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 9, 2012 wherein it was held that employees can encash their earned leave on the day of retirement irrespective of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. “The reason given by the Full Bench is that Earned Leave encashment is a right equal to the right to property ...

In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force. The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005. The apex court judgment has now added another disqualification for women regarding their right of inheritance. Until now, they could not ask for a share if the property h...

n a landmark judgment, a full bench comprising of  Mohit Shah CJ, MS Sanklecha and MS Sonak, JJ. held that the daughters alive on September 9, 2005 would be entitled to equal rights in ancestral property. Earlier, a division bench in the case of Vaishali S. Ganorkar vs. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar 2012 (5) Bom CR 210 had upheld the prospective operation of the  Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which in effect disentitled all daughters born before 9 September 2005 to claim their equal interest in the Joint HUF. A single bench comprising of RG Ketkar, J. disagreed with the decision of the Ganorkar case and concluded that the amended Section 6 had retrospective effect from the date of the enactment of the Principal Act and is applicable to all daughters who are born before or after 2005 as a daughter becomes a coparcener in her own right by  her birth itself.  When the matter was referred to this Court, the Court agreed with the decision of Justice Ketkar. The Cour...

Citations: 1) H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. VS L. VENKATESH REDDY, Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of 2011]-Decided on 17-4-2015.  The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh's case (supra) are relevant and are extracted below :                 "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also ...

In a judgment, a bench comprising of VM Kanade and CB Colabawalla, JJ  has ruled that a widow, even after she has remarried, has the rights over her former husband's properties. In the present case, the petition was filed by a man against his former sister-in-law who had claimed the right over her deceased husband’s properties after she married another man. The brother of the deceased relied  on the provisions of the  Hindu Widows' Re-marriage Act, 1856, which stated the limited right and interest which a widow had in her deceased husband’s property would cease to exist if she remarries without express permission, and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property, shall thereupon succeed to the same. The Court ruled that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would prevail over the repealed Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856. There was no provision in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was pari materia with section 2 of the ...

Before launching an income tax search and seizure, it is not necessary for the authorities to allow the assessee to inspect documents to verify whether there is sufficient ground for the order, the Supreme Court stated while disapproving the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case, Director General vs Spacewood Furnishers Ltd. It is necessary to record the reasons for ordering the search because the court may have to verify whether it was legal and not arbitrary. But that principle "would not confer on the assessee a right of inspection of the documents or to a communication of the reasons at the stage of issuing the authorisation," the court underlined. It clarified that it was only at the stage of commencement of the assessment proceedings after completion of the search and seizure that the requisite information may be disclosed to the assessee. The high court view would make the exercise counter-productive. Moreover, the high court committed a "ser...