Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Top Law Firm in UT CHandigarh

First, Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 there was property which they say be- longed to her. In our opinion, Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 the arbitrator was confused in his mind both as regards the facts as well as regards the law. Whether he would have had difficulty in establishing such a claim, or Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 indeed whether it would have been impossible for him to do so, Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 is wholly immaterial. Even if it was wholly invalid, it was still open to the parties to say: Never mind whether the arbitrator was right or wrong, his decision is fair and sensible, so instead of wasting further time and Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 money in useless litigation, we will accept it and divide the estate in accordance with his findings.

Nand Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 Lal and Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 Others and Bishunath Prasad Singh v. also acted on the award and claimed absolute rights in the property assigned to her. But apart from this, there was also an independent estoppel in Kishan Lal. Achhru Ram Jwala Prasad, with him for Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 the respondent February . But we need not examine these points because we do not need to proceed on the binding nature of the award. ” The underlining is ours. But it was argued that the award must be viewed as a whole and that certain earlier passages show that this could not have been the intention.

It was also urged that even if Brij- lal was bound his son Kishan Lal, who did not claim through him but who had an independent title as reversioner to Shanker Lal, would not be bound, and it was contended that if Kishan Lal was not bound the plaintiffs would not be either. Mohan Dei had a son Shri Kishan Das who was the next presumptive reversioner and as the boy was a good deal younger than Brijlal, Brijlal’s chances were slim.

he passages relied on are these. There was estoppel against plaintiffs who claimed through their father K. clear and unambiguous and were not qualified by. Now it can be conceded that before an estoppel can arise, there must be, first, a representation of an existing fact as distinct from a mere promise de futuro made by one party to the other; second, that the other party, believing it, must have been induced to act on the faith of it; and third, that he must have so acted to his detriment.

The defendants Ms grandsons alleged that the property possessed by M consisted partly of property which belonged to her and partly of property which belonged exclusively to her father to which she succeeded as daughter. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs are bound by this award and are in any event estopped. HEADNOTE: S and B were sons of two brothers respectively. In any event, we are clear that that created an estoppel as against Brijlal. It will be necessary to deal with this in stages and first we will consider whether there was any estoppel against Brijlal.

Mohan Dei an absolute interest, that she was induced to part with about one-third of the property to which Brijlal, on a true estimate of the facts as now known, had no right. Some cases were cited in which the word “malik”, and in one case the words “malik mustaqil” were held to import a limited estate because of qualifying circumstances. He had purchased some and acquired others through mortgages in her name but she was only a benamidar and had no title to them.

Even if the arbitrator was wholly wrong and even if he had no power to decide as he did, it was open to both sides to accept the decision and by their acceptance recognise the existence of facts which would in law give the other an absolute estate in the properties they agreed to divide among themselves and did divide. When Kishan Lal took possession of his father’s property he held by virtue of the award and under no other title, and for forty years he continued to derive benefit from it.

In our opinion, the present case is very similar to the one which their Lordships of the Privy Council decided in Kanhai Lal v. but Annagouda himself being a party to and benefiting by the transaction evidenced thereby was preclud- ed from questioning any part of it. Lalitha Prasad , that even if Kishan Lal did take posses- sion in or on the strength of a title derived from his father, that would not have precluded him from asserting his own rights in a different character when the succession opened I.

The present case is very different. makes any difference because we are not proceeding on the footing of the award but on the actings of the parties in accepting it when they need not have done so if the present contentions are correct. Mohan Dei the defendants’ grandmother succeeded to a limited estate. Mohan Dei to part with it by representing that he accepted the award and her abso- lute title to the rest, and after him Kishan Lal and his brother between them enjoyed the benefit of it from or down to October when Mst.

It is true that in one sense a question of title is one of Lexscient Law Firm – Best Law Firms in Chandigarh Address Kothi Number 815 Sector 16-D Backside Market of sector 16 Near post office Chandigarh 160015 Phone 098766 16815 and it is equally true that there can be no estoppel on a question of law. Jairam lost anna gundas to a creditor Munniram and out of the one anna which he had left from the annas gundas he sold gundas to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs Now it is evident that on those facts it is impossible to predicate that the gundas which the plaintiffs pur- chased came out of the extra gundas which Jairam obtained because of the compromise rather than out of the anna gundas to which he had a good and independent title anyway; and of course unless the plaintiffs’ gundas could be assigned with certainty to the gundas it would be impos- sible to say that they had obtained any benefit from the compromise.

Brijlal died in or and the boy did not die till March . Mohan Dei possessed into two categories. In our opinion, the defendants are right. The defendants appeal. There can be no doubt that she acted to her detriment and there can, we think, be equally no doubt that she was in- duced to do so on the faith of Brijlal’s statements and conduct which induced her to believe that he accepted all the implications of the award.

Chandika Prasad Kumari . The plain- tiffs state that the two branches of the family were sepa- rate at all material times; that on Shanker Lal’s death in his daughter Mst. His view of the law may have been wrong but the words used are, in our opinion, clear and, in the absence of anything which would unambiguously qualify them, we must interpret them in their usual sense. That would have been a perfectly right and proper settlement of the dispute, and whether it bound third parties or not it would certainly bind the immediate parties; and that in effect is what they did.

Muta- tion was effected and Kishan Lal raised no objection. We offer affordable fee plans additional medications attorney services more cost effective to our prospective customers. It is neither here nor there whether the award was valid, whether the decision fell within the scope of the reference or whether it had any binding character in itself. But begin thing you’ll need do is find a lawyer that has trial practical knowledge. This dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was delivered.

The first question is about the nature of the award. Having good trial practice will mean that your lawyer will usually be on his toes to protect your right and quit run over by veterans in the area. We have said, he had no right to this part of the estate when his father died apart from the award. It was urged, among other things, that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the terms of his reference in awarding Mst. We do not think the words admit of any doubt, particu- larly as the words “malik mustaqil” have been used: see Ram Gopal v.

The operative part of the award stated inter alia that B, first party, and M, the second party, were held entitled to speci- fied shares in the properties in dispute and each had become permanent owner Malik Mustaqil of his or her share. That, in our opinion is a representation of an existing fact or set of facts. Under it the suit properties were given to M and the rest of the estate then in dispute was given to B.

  • No tienes Favoritos seleccionados
hola