Search results
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act No. 39 of 2005) Devolution of interest in coparcenary property: Section (6) 1-On and from the commencement (September 9, 2005) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall-
August 22, 2020. vol lV no 34. EPW. Economic & Political Weekly. of Hindu succession law (Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma 2020: para 75). The concept of coparcenary ownership of property was, in the Prakash case, con-fused with the notion of survivorship. According to the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where there were no ...
Note: Sub-section 4 of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 has finally abolished the doctrine of son’s pious obligation and now the son cannot be made to discharge the debts of his father solely on the basis of his religious obligation. DR. M & N
I. Indigenous law and the early colonial state. The imperatives of the Company’s account-books required that administrators remain mindful of two broad goals first, to extract economic surplus, in the form of revenue, from the agrarian economy, and second, to maintain effective political control with minimal military involvement3.
The amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act,1956, (w.e.f. 09.09.2005) is reproduced below. of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, M and N stated that they are entitled to the joint family properties as coparceners as the 2005 Amendment would apply to their case in view of the pendency of the partition suit as on date of coming into force of the ...
The Appellant (Kenyan and British Citizen) and Respondent (Indian Citizen) got married on 29.07.2007 at New Delhi. After marriage, the Respondent shifted to Nairobi, Kenya and settled into her matrimonial home with the Appellant. A son, named Aditya Vikram Kansagra was born to the couple on 02.12.2019 at New Delhi.
Perspective’ (2005) 10 Media & Arts Law Review 99 available here Jeremy N Sheff, ‘Veblen Brands’ (2012) 96 Minnesota Law Review 769 available here Trademark Infringement – Barbie Girl Mattel Inc v MCA Records Inc, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003)
Act. Complaint dismissed with ` 1,500/- as costs. Supreme Court of India Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab and Anr on 5 August, 2005 The gist of the information is that on 15.2.1995, the informant’s father, late Jiwan Lal Sharma was admitted as a patient in a private ward of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana.
OP-INTT160006 229..250. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2016, 24, 229–250 doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eaw005 Advance Access Publication Date: 9 May 2016 Article.
succession. 9. Nor was any attempt made to define the term for the purposes of the General Assembly’s ‘Definition of Aggression’, Article 1 of which reads: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
