Skip to main content

like any juristic person, a company is a legal entity, apart from it's members? Capable of rights and duties of its own. Elucidate this statement.

  Certainly, the concept of a company as a juristic person, also known as a legal person or legal entity, is a fundamental principle in corporate law. It means that a company is treated as a distinct entity separate from its individual members (shareholders or owners). This principle has several key implications: 1. Separate Legal Existence: A company, once incorporated, is recognized as having its own separate legal existence. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and engage in various legal activities in its own name. This is distinct from the individuals who own or manage the company. 2. Limited Liability: One of the primary advantages of forming a company, especially a corporation, is the concept of limited liability. Shareholders are generally not personally liable for the company's debts and legal obligations. The company itself is responsible for its own debts, which helps protect the personal assets of its members. 3. Rights and Duties: Just like...

what is void and voidable and invalid marriage in Hindu Marriage Act.

 Void Marriage is define under section 11 Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

11. Void marriages.—Any marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto 2 [against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5.

Null and void marriage as per clause (1) Bigamy and Clause (iv) Sapind Marriage and clause (v) Prohibition relationship marriage .

Section 125 Crpc void marriage wife can not ask for maintenance however voidable marriage can ask for maintenance. 

Voidable Marriage is define under section 12 of Hindu marriage Act 1955.

12. Voidable marriages.—(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:— 3 [(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the imporence of the respondent; or] (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner 4 [was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force 5 [or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent]; or (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.

 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage— 

(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if—

(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or 

(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; 

(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied— 

(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; 

(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and 

(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of 6 [the said ground]. 

Invalid Marriage  An invalid marriage is, quite simply, a marriage arrangement that is not recognized as valid and legal by the law. Marriages that are found to be invalid may require an annulment instead of a divorce when the couple no longer wishes to be married, or when the marriage must be dissolved due to its invalidity.

disgusting between void and voidable marriage

  • void marriage is no marriage and voidable marriage is perfectly valid marriage unless it is declared annulled by the court. 
  • void marriage can not be segregate  and void marriage does not create any right or obligation, however voidable marriage is valid and create all right and obligation and continue to submit unless one of the party goes to the court.
  • if spouse undertake a void marriage than there is no legal consequence. No legal status of husband or wife arise. in case of voidable marriage confirm a legal status of husband or wife and children of the voidable marriage is fully legitimate.
the wife of void marriage can not claim maintenance and wife of voidable marriage claim the maintenance. 
void marriage being void from beginning, no decree needed to declared it null and void. it is null and void in abinito even decree is not pass remain null and void. 

In contract in voidable marriage unless the decree is pass and make it null and void it will be valid marriage. 
voidable marriage will be void only when one of the spouse desire to exercise it option. void marriage are retrospective after 8 may 1955.
in voidable marriage no criminal liability.
Hulsbury Rule 
impotence means lack of capacity to consume a marriage. 
lack of capacity to have normal intercourse as per halsbury impotency can be mental or physical. 
when impotency can not allow to consummation of marriage. 
Impotency as general 
Impotency as absolute 
Relative Impotency
Subjective Impotency 
Any person of opposite sex it is called Quad hanc
one have will-full not allow to consume the marriage. it's ground for divorce. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

like any juristic person, a company is a legal entity, apart from it's members? Capable of rights and duties of its own. Elucidate this statement.

  Certainly, the concept of a company as a juristic person, also known as a legal person or legal entity, is a fundamental principle in corporate law. It means that a company is treated as a distinct entity separate from its individual members (shareholders or owners). This principle has several key implications: 1. Separate Legal Existence: A company, once incorporated, is recognized as having its own separate legal existence. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and engage in various legal activities in its own name. This is distinct from the individuals who own or manage the company. 2. Limited Liability: One of the primary advantages of forming a company, especially a corporation, is the concept of limited liability. Shareholders are generally not personally liable for the company's debts and legal obligations. The company itself is responsible for its own debts, which helps protect the personal assets of its members. 3. Rights and Duties: Just like...

Case Summary: D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

 The DK Basu v. State of West Bengal case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that deals with the issue of custodial torture and the rights of arrested persons. The case is named after Dr. D.K. Basu, a renowned physician and human rights activist, who filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines to prevent custodial violence and protect the fundamental rights of individuals in police custody. Here's a summary of the DK Basu v. State of West Bengal case: Background: In 1986, Dr. D.K. Basu filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of India, highlighting the rampant incidents of custodial violence and torture by the police in India. The petition sought to address the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention) of the Indian Constitution. Key Arguments: 1. Dr. Basu argued that custodial violence and torture were prevalent in India and that it violated the fundam...

Testamentary Succession in Hindu Succession Act 1956 with 2005 amendment.

30 Testamentary succession . —  6  [***] Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so  7  [disposed of by him or by her], in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.  Explanation.— The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property or the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the property of the tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru shall notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him or by her within the meaning of this  8  [section.]  9  [***] Testamentary disposition of property was never appreciated or allowed by any personal law because every personal law tent to safe guard it's property the only exception ...