Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing I. Nelson & Anr vs Kallayam Pastorate & Ors on 14 September, 2006

N.S. Narasimhan vs The Secretary To The Government on 29 March, 2023

13. The view of this Court gets further strengthened by the decision of the Supreme Court in I. Nelson and another vs. Kallayam Pastorate and others, reported in 200 11 SCC 624, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which applies in all force to the case of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

N.S. Narasimhan vs The Secretary To The Government on 29 March, 2023

13. The view of this Court gets further strengthened by the decision of the Supreme Court in I. Nelson and another vs. Kallayam Pastorate and others, reported in 200 11 SCC 624, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which applies in all force to the case of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Rt.Rev.A.R.Stephen And Another vs D.J. Gorakhpur And Others on 20 February, 2019

In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered in Basant Prasad Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and another10; Anugarh Narain Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others11; Sri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others12; Board of Control For Cricket In India and another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others13 and Nelson and another vs. Kallayam Pastorate and others14.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy vs Unknown on 19 July, 2017

In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in I.Nelson and another v. Kallayam Pastorate and others [(2006)11 SCC 624], and in particular, paragraphs 14 to 16 thereof, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a society need not necessarily be held to have became defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with. Likewise, in this case, he contended that the temporary 5/13 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.22 of 2020 in C.S.No.14 of 2020 defunct status of the 1st respondent is only on account of non-filing of documents and not on account of non-operation. Consequently, it is a curable defect and that cannot be the basis of an application for interim injunction at the instance of a 3rd party. Thus, the ad-interim injunction that was granted earlier is liable to be vacated by dismissing the application.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajan Lao vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ... on 27 May, 2022

10. However, another aspect of deeming fiction, which is of significant import, is the principle that wherever a position of fact or law is statutorily deemed to exist, it would carry with it every consequence which would follow from, were that state of affairs to be in existence. One may refer in this context to Karnataka State Road 7 AIR 2014 SC 1440 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 481/2022 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:31.05.2022 14:44:27 Transport Corpn. v. B.A. Jayaram 8, I. Nelson v. Kallayam Pastorate9, M. Aamira Fathima v. Annamalai University 10.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Laxmi Education Society vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009

In the case of Nelson & Anr. Vs. Kallayam Pastorate & ors. reported in 2006 (11) SCC 624, the Apex Court has expounded that keeping in view interest of the general public, even if it were to be a minority organisation, the Court can oversee its function in case of mis-management. While referring to its earlier decision in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee has observed that even otherwise rights under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution are not absolute and unfettered. Even in the case of Rt.Rev.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 8 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Muhammad Thayyib vs A.P.Abdul Khader Maulavi on 12 April, 2012

1 SCC 179), University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Others ([2006] 8 SCC 486) and I.Nelson v, Kallayam Pastorate ([2006] 11 SCC 624). Learned counsel argues that even if there is found to be some irregularity or even illegality in the election of some of the Sakhas or, there was no election in some of the Sakhas, that would not vitiate either the election of other Sakhas or of the superior bodies.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1   2 3 Next