send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Possession of a manager cannot be treated as ostensible ownership with the consent of (2) the real owner. This was held in case of:
Seshumulla M. Shah v. Sayed Abdul Rashid, AIR 1991 Kant 273
Ved Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1989 NOC 136
Motimul Sowvar v. Vijalakshi Ammal, AIR 1965 Mad 432
B. Sitaram Rao v. Bibhushana, AIR 1978 Ori 222.
By: Abhipedia ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses