Smt Tanusree Mandal (Hembrom) vs Sree Sujay Hembrom and Ors – 02/04/2022

Home › Forums › Civil Law Discourse › Smt Tanusree Mandal (Hembrom) vs Sree Sujay Hembrom and Ors – 02/04/2022

Tagged: ,

Log In Register Lost Password
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • 03/04/2022 at 21:58 #120167
      advtanmoy
      Keymaster

      It is also to be stated that S-14 of the Act provides for counselling at any stage and the Ld. Court below can direct any of the parties either singly or jointly, to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. There is nothing on record that the Ld. Court below has taken any steps adhering to the said section of the Act when the parties filed a joint compromise petition.

      [See the full post at: Smt Tanusree Mandal (Hembrom) vs Sree Sujay Hembrom and Ors – 02/04/2022]

  • Author
    Posts
Log In Register Lost Password
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
  • A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]

Jurisprudence

Recent Updates