Legal Reference Library

A division bench of the Bombay High Court  in Shakti Yezdani and Another. vs  Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Others.,   has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953. The division bench was hearing appeals arising out of an order passed by a single bench. By an order dated March 31, 2015 a single judge of the Bombay High Court held that in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited(Kokate case) the view taken by Roshan Dalvi J was per incuriam or bad in law. These appeals were placed before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same. The primary dispute arises out of a suit regarding the administration of estate of late Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar who died in A...

The Supreme Court in Nitu vs. Sheela Rani, has held that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and it is to be given under the provisions of the relevant pension scheme. The high court, in this case, had held that the mother of deceased employee was entitled to the succession certificate in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as she was also one of the heirs to the deceased employee. The widow of the deceased approached the apex court against this order, which held that the mother should also get 50 per cent share in the pension. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/family-pension-not-part-anyones-estate-disposed-will-sc/

Supreme Court: While construing the provisions of Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, the Court held that the succession to a Hindu male dying intestate will vest only in the widow under Section 4(1)(ii) to the exclusion of the daughters.  In the present case, two brother and the wife of elder brother constituted a joint Hindu family. The elder brother was the Karta of the said family. Both the brothers had partition and divided their joint family properties. The younger brother died intestate, leaving behind his widow and three daughters. Later, the widow executed a will bequeathing her share in the joint family property in favour of only one of the three daughters. One of the daughters filed a suit claiming her 1/4th share in the property as per Section 10(2)(g) of the 1933 Act. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel of the respondent, also invited the attention of the Court to Section 8(1)(d) of the Act and according to him since joint family property passed to younger brother who wa...

[2015(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 = 2015(2) HLR 172] PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (SNEH PRASHAR, J.) SURINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED AND NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) Appellant  VERSUS PIARA SINGH Respondent  R.S.A. No. 1498 of 1986 Decided on 16-11-2014. (A) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 69 - Will - Proof of Will – When attesting witnesses not found – Held that, it becomes incumbent upon the propounder of the Will to prove two facts (i) that the attestation of one attesting witness atleast was in his handwriting; and (ii) that the signatures of the executant is in his handwriting.  (Para 13)  (B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 – Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c) - Will – Proof of Execution - Suspicious Circumstances - A Will is not a document which can be admitted in evidence without complying with the provisions specifically stipulated for proving the same - Factum of existence of the Will brought to light by the plaintiffs only when the...