Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: oudh laws act 1876 part ii general laws to be administeredin oudh Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.043 seconds)

Jul 18 2001 (SC)

Smt. Mattoo Devi Vs. Damodar Lal (Dead) by Lrs and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-18-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC2611; JT2001(5)SC496; (2001)3MLJ116(SC); RLW2002(1)SC21; 2001(4)SCALE388; (2001)6SCC330; [2001]3SCR1009; 2002(1)LC114(SC)

..... specifically provided as it can always be used as a weapon of the privy council decision referred earlier, the court was concerned with oudh laws act (18 of 1876) which too had an identical provision for giving notice by notice was given but since pre-emptier know that the property was sale ..... in disregard of his preferential right.'8. on the basis of the aforesaid.subba rao, j. with his usual felicity of expression observed that the general law of pre-emption does not recognise any right to clam a share in the property sold when there are rival claimants and pre-emption is a right ..... one year of the purchaser taking possession of the property and a suit or claim for preemption must relate to whole of the interest and not a part of the estate.3. needless to record that right of pre-emption (shuf'a) is the right which the owner of immovable property possesses to ..... facts ought to be noticed at this juncture for proper and effective appreciation of the matter in issue.5. briefly stated, the facts depict that defendants nos.2 and 4 has sold their house situated in gali chaudharian chowkri bisheshswarji, to defendant no. 1 on 30th july, 1962, for a sum of rs. ..... learned advocate in support of the appeal only restricted his submission on the issue of the principle of talab, as is known in muslim law.2. the principle of talab in muhammadan law has three specific facets; the first being talab-e muwathaba: talab in common parlance means and implies a demand and of jumping. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

The Commander Coast Guard Region (East), Fort St. George, Chennai-9 an ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-10-2001

Reported in : (2001)1MLJ420

..... somehow always managed to protect themselves and have never required the same solicitude).seamen have had and still have a high priority maritime lien under the general maritime law in the u.k. it is a lien which follows the ship no matter who is the owner. it survives even against a foreign purchaser. ..... . it is, however, inchoate and very little positive in value unless it is enforced by an action. it is a right which springs from general maritime law and is based on the concept as if the ship itself caused the harm, loss or damage to others or to their property and this must ..... india board without discharge certificate. that section reads thus,'no person shall engage or carry to sea any seaman under this act in any ship...'(ii) as mentioned supra, the learned additional solicitor general referred to section 86 to 117 in support of the above contention. a careful reading of these provisions show that these ..... at the expense of the crew (as they have charge over the vessel for the wages} and penalise the workers for no fault on their part is against law and the principles of natural justice. {italics supplied}41. at this juncture, it may be pointed out that no claim was made by the ..... had been defeated by the order of confiscation.christopher hill in his well known and classic book 'maritime law', after referring to what is maritime lien (we have already referred to in extenso in the earlier part of our judgment}, quotes the ruling in the bold buccleugh, 1852 (7) moo pc 267. we quote .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //