Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Competence of Mysore Courts Upheld in Estate Dispute</h1> <h3>R. VISWANATHAN Versus RUKN UL MULK SYED ABDUL WAJID</h3> R. VISWANATHAN Versus RUKN UL MULK SYED ABDUL WAJID - 1963 AIR 1, 1963 (3) SCR 22 Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Mysore Courts and the extent of the conclusiveness of the judgment of the Full Bench under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Whether the estate devised under the will dated September 10, 1942, was the joint family estate of Ramalingam and his sons.3. Allegations of bias and interest against the judges of the Mysore High Court.4. Violation of the principles of natural justice during the hearing of the appeal by the Full Bench.5. Conclusiveness of the Mysore judgment in respect of the properties in Madras.Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Mysore Courts and the Extent of the Conclusiveness of the Judgment:The Court examined whether the Mysore Courts were competent both internally and internationally to decide the controversy. It was established that the Mysore Courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved. The judgment of the Mysore High Court was found to be conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and was given on the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that the judgment of a foreign court is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, provided it meets the conditions laid out in Section 13.2. Joint Family Estate:The Court reviewed the evidence to determine whether the estate devised under the will was the joint family property of Ramalingam and his sons. The High Court held that the properties and businesses were acquired by Ramalingam through his own efforts and were not part of a joint family estate. The Court found that the business and possessions were not those of a joint family but the separate properties of Ramalingam, thereby upholding the findings of the Mysore High Court.3. Allegations of Bias and Interest Against the Judges:The allegations against Chief Justice Medappa and Justice Balakrishniah included claims of bias, interest, and improper conduct during the hearing of the appeals. The Court examined the evidence and found that the allegations were not substantiated. It was noted that the conduct of the sons of Ramalingam was calculated to exasperate the judges, and there was no sufficient evidence to prove bias or interest that would disqualify the judges from hearing the case.4. Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice:The Court considered whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the hearing of the appeals by the Full Bench. It was argued that the refusal to grant adjournments and the composition of the Bench indicated a denial of justice. However, the Court found that the refusal to grant adjournments was within the discretion of the judges and did not amount to a violation of natural justice. The Court also held that the inclusion of Justice Balakrishniah on the Full Bench, despite his earlier judgment, did not violate the principles of natural justice due to the practice and circumstances of the Mysore High Court.5. Conclusiveness of the Mysore Judgment in Respect of the Properties in Madras:The Court examined the extent to which the Mysore judgment was conclusive regarding the properties in Madras. It was held that the Mysore judgment was conclusive in respect of the shares of the Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd. and other movable properties. However, the judgment was not conclusive regarding the immovable properties in Madras, as the Mysore Court did not have jurisdiction over these properties. The Court affirmed that the findings of the Mysore High Court on the status of Ramalingam and the ownership of the Kolar Gold Fields business were binding and could not be re-litigated in the Madras suit.Conclusion:The appeals were decided based on the principles of competence and conclusiveness of foreign judgments under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court upheld the findings of the Mysore High Court regarding the status of Ramalingam and the ownership of the Kolar Gold Fields business, while allowing the Madras High Court to decide on the immovable properties in Madras. The allegations of bias and violation of natural justice were not substantiated, and the judgment of the Mysore High Court was found to be conclusive in respect of the matters directly adjudicated upon.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found