1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Injunction Limits Estate Fund Withdrawal Except for Minor's Provident Share; Estate Covers Application Costs.</h1> The court granted an injunction restraining Miss Lumsden and the railway authorities from withdrawing or paying funds related to the deceased's estate, ... - Issues:Application for injunction to restrain authorities from making payments of money belonging to deceased's estate and to restrain a specific individual from withdrawing or receiving payments.Analysis:1. The petitioner, deceased's brother, applied for letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed, claiming entitlement to the deceased's estate. The deceased's will directed the distribution of his property, including various sums of money held by the B.N. Railway. The petitioner sought an injunction to prevent Miss Lumsden, the sister of the deceased's wife, from withdrawing the funds as she claimed to be the guardian of the minor son and nominee to receive the money. The petitioner argued that the funds should be distributed as per the terms of the will.2. The first issue addressed was the maintainability of the injunction application. The court determined that the application did not fall under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as there was no property in dispute in the context of a letters of administration proceeding. However, the court recognized its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions beyond the scope of the rule if warranted by the circumstances. The court referred to previous decisions to support this interpretation.3. The court then examined the specific funds in question. It was established that a significant amount of money in the deceased's Provident Fund was nominated to be paid to the minor son, as per the Provident Funds Act. Therefore, this sum did not form part of the deceased's estate and could not be affected by the will. The court decided that no injunction was necessary for this amount. However, regarding other funds, a substantial question arose as to whether they belonged to the deceased's estate or the minor son, especially considering the nomination made by the deceased. The court decided to restrain Miss Lumsden and the railway authorities from withdrawing or paying these funds until the validity of the will and representation to the estate were determined.4. In conclusion, the court granted the injunction to prevent Miss Lumsden and the railway authorities from dealing with the funds, except for the specific amount not part of the deceased's estate. The court also decided that the costs of the application would come out of the estate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
