Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Bom30; (1946)48BOMLR498
..... word 'any' according to context can bear either meaning. the use of the word 'debt' or 'security' in the singular leads to no conclusion by itself. in the bombay general clauses act, section 13, it is provided that words used in the provincial legislation in the singular would include plural and vice- versa, unless the context showed otherwise. in the present case ..... , i prefer the view taken by the calcutta high court about the meaning of the words used in article 12. i apprehend that the learned judges of the nagpur and. oudh court omitted to notice that the word 'any' can be used properly and without straining the language to mean also 'all' or 'every'. i therefore agree with the conclusion of ..... to three cases of other high courts in india. two of them, namely one from nagpur (premalabai v. priya kumari a. i. r . nag. 400 and the other from oudh (pirthtvi nath v. estate of late trilok nath a. i. r  oud 414 are in favour of the petitioner whilst a case from the calcutta high court, in re ..... that a succession certificate shall not be granted under part x of the act with respect; to any debt or security to which a right is required by section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate. subsection (2) defines 'security' and included in such definition is 'any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or .....Tag this Judgment!