S.G.SHAH
Swati Abhishek Binaykia – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Madanlal Binaykia – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
S.G. Shah, J.—The petitioner herein is original defendant; whereas respondent is original plaintiff before the Family Court at Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.1546 of 2015. They are referred in the same capacity herein also.
2. The petitioner – defendant has challenged the order dated 21.10.2015 by the Family Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.5 in such Family Suit No.1546 of 2015. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 28.8.2015 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs under the provisions of Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 9 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 praying following reliefs in paragraph 35 of the suit:—
(a) The Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff, being the natural guardian of the minor Vihaan Binaykia, is entitled to, and has the legal right, power and authority, to retain the custody of the minor Vihaan Binaykia and that the respondent is not entitled to remove minor Vihaan Binaykia from the custody of the plaintiff.
(b) The Honourable Court be pleased to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with, or removing minor Vihaan Binaykia from the custody of the plainti
Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal
Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A.Chakramakkal
Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw Vs.Aravand M. Dinshaw & Anr.
Ms. Shilpa Aggarwal vs. Aviral Mittal
Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Sarita Sharma vs. Sushil Sharma
Padmakumari and Ors. Vs. Dasayyan & Ors.
Dhanwanti Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde reported in (1998)1 SCC 112: [1997] 9 Supreme 220 . (Para 29)
Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011)9 SCC 479: [2011] 6 Supreme 322 . (Para 29)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.