Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995

Diocese Of Chikkamagaluru vs Lancy J Narona on 26 May, 2023

OTHERS vs MORAN MATERIAL ON RECORD MARTHOMA AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 89 and contends that Section 9 is very wide. However, in the absence of any ecclesiastical Courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite. The counsel referring this judgment contended that with regard to the matter of ritual aspects cannot be adjudicated in a civil Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Shri Uttaradi Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502 WP No. 103982 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case's and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13.
Karnataka High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Sri Raghavendraswamy Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502 WP No. 103982 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case's and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13.
Karnataka High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document
1