Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Madras High Court

Dr.R.Jayakaran Issac vs The Church Of South India on 8 December, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.Sundar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE 
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

O.S.A.No.225 of 2016

1.Dr.R.Jayakaran Issac
2.S.Armstrong
3.P.Amalraj				.. Appellants
    
   (On behalf of themselves and members
     of the Church of South India)

vs
					
1.The Church of South India, Synod
   rep. by its Moderator Most Rev.Dr.Dyvasirvatham,
   No.5, White's  Road,
   Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
2.The Most Rev. Dr.Dyvasirvatham,
   The Moderator,
   Church of South India Synod,
   No.5, White's Road,
   Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
3.Rt.Rev.Thomas K.Oomen,
   Deputy Moderator,
   Church of South India Synod,
   No.5, White's Road,
   Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
4.Rev.Dr.D.R.Sadananda,
   General Secretary CSI Synod,   
   No.5, White's Road,
   Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.



5.Adv.C.Robert Bruce,
   Treasurer,
   CSI Synod,   
   No.5, White's Road,
   Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
6.H.Arthur Sadhanandhan
7.Shamgar Ravikumar Royal
8.D.Charles
9.Dr.Chandra Devanesan
10.C.Joseph Premanath
11.K.Mansingh
12.D.Selvakumar
13.Dr.M.P.Kalaiselvan			.. Respondents
     (Respondent Nos.6 to 13 impleaded as per the
      order of this Court dt. 8.11.2016 in 
      CMP.No.17473/2016)

	Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 12.08.2016 made in A.No.342 of 2016 on the file of this Court.

	For Appellant	..  Mr.M.K.Kabir
			    Senior Counsel
			    for M/s.BFS Legal

	For Respondent	..  Mr.V.Prakash
			    Senior Counsel
			    for Adrian D. Rozario
* * * * *
JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) It is agreed that the application to sue in a representative capacity being A.No.342 of 2016 was inadvertently mentioned in the impugned order and thus, the impugned order is not a decision on that application. In fact, earlier orders were passed granting leave pursuant whereto publication also took place.

2. The appeal is disposed of in terms aforesaid. No costs.

(S.K.K., CJ.)       (M.S.,J.)
08.12.2016         
Index	: Yes/No
Internet	: Yes/No
bbr

To

The Sub Assistant Registrar,

Original Side, High Court, Madras.

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and M.Sundar, J.

bbr O.S.A.No.225 of 2016 08.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in