P.N.PRAKASH, R.MAHADEVAN, M.SUNDAR, N.ANAND VENKATESH, A.A.NAKKIRAN
S. Annapoorni – Appellant
Versus
K. Vijay – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
(Prayer: G.W.O.P. filed under Sections 3, 7 and 10 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and under Order XXI Rules 2,3 and 11 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 17 of the Letters Patent, 1865.)
To facilitate analysis and for ease of reference, the order has been divided into the following segments:
| S. No. | Sub-heading | Paragraph nos. |
| I | Backdrop to the Reference | 3-5 |
| II | Maintainability of the Reference | 6-9 |
| III | Submissions of the Jurisdiction Retention Camp | 10-18 |
| IV | Submissions of the Jurisdiction Ouster Camp | 19-26 |
| V | Does Mary Thomas require Reconsideration? | 27-48 |
| VI | The Delhi and Bombay Views | 49-59 |
| VII | Scope of Clause 17 of the Letters Patent | 60-79 |
| VIII | The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | 80-94 |
| IX | Inherent Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | 95-105 |
| X | Impact of the Family Courts Act, 1984 | 106-126 |
| XI | Extra-Territorial jurisdiction of Clause 17 of the Letters Patent | 127-141 |
| XII | Effect of Concurrent Jurisdiction |
|
A.S.K. Krishnappa Chettiar v. S.V.V. Somiah
Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav
Bangalore Club v Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate
Chandre Prabhuji Jain Temple v. Harikrishna
Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Gautam Menon v. Sucharitha Gautam
Innoventive Industries Limited v ICICI Bank
Kandla Export Corporation and Another v OCI Corporation and another
Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Rajah of Vizianagaram v The Secretary of State for India
Ram Prakash Agarwal v Gopi Krishan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.