Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Sri La Sri Subramania Desiga ... vs State Of Madras on 8 February, 1965

Sri-La-Sri Shanmuga Desiga ... vs The State Of Madras Represented By ... on 22 December, 1993

10. The validity of this G.O. No. 3039, (Revenue), dated 4th August, 1956 was challenged in W.P. No. 295 of 1958 S.D.G. Pandara Sannadhi v. State of Madras . It was argued on behalf of the present appellants in that case that the trusteeship of Rajan Kattalai being hereditary in the Head of Dharamapuram Mutt, is a right of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and since Section 64 of the Act empowers the Government to takeaway that right of property in an arbitrary and capricious manner, that provision is constitutionally invalid. The second ground which was urged by the appellant was that the notification was issued without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause why the earlier notification should not be extended, and that made the notification invalid. The Division Bench rejected the first contention. In regard to the second contention it held that the proceedings authorised to be taken under Section 64(4) are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings and so before making an order, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to be heard, for that was the requirement of natural justice. However, since the Division Bench though that the impugned order could last only till 30th September, 1961 a short period after the delivery of the judgment on 11th August, 1961, it would serve no purpose to issue a writ quashing the said order on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with before passing it. Accordingly it, dismissed the writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Sri La Sri Harihara Sri Gnanasambanda vs The Commissioner on 1 December, 2023

In order to substantiate the said allegation, the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri La Sri Subramania Desiga Snanasambanda Padara Sannadhi Vs State of Madras vide judgement dated 08.02.1965 reported in 1965 SCR (2) 934 (1965 AIR 1683). The present petitioner and the petitioner referred in the judgment belongs to same Mutt but different temple. In the said judgment it is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/54 W.P.(MD).Nos.20194 and 20384 of 2023 seen that the administration power was granted to “Kattalai Thambiran” through the scheme framed in A.S.No.181 of 1917. The Kattalai Thambiran would be appointed by the Hereditary Trustee. After the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 the Commissioner had filed a petition under section 65(3)(a) before Sub Judge, Mayuram for modifying the scheme based on various allegations of mismanagement and full income of the temple not having been secured and safeguarded. However, the Sub Judge had rendered a finding that the allegation of mismanagement is not proved. Aggrieved over, the Government had preferred an appeal in Appeal Suit No.318 of 1954 before High Court of Madras and the scheme was approved for appointing Executive Officer and the powers of Kattalai Thambiran was granted to Executive Officer. Aggrieved over, the Mutt had filed SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the categorical finding of the Sub Court that the allegation of mismanagement is not proved, had held that the Executive Officer cannot be appointed when the allegation of mismanagement was not proved. And further held that the appointment of Executive Officer is not necessary and had restored the power to the Kattalai Thambiran and the Executive Officer was replaced by Kattalai Thambiran. From the said judgment it is evident that Executive Officer can be appointed if there is mismanagement or for other reasons stated in the Act. Hence this Court proceeds to analyze whether there is any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/54 W.P.(MD).Nos.20194 and 20384 of 2023 evidence of mismanagement.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Srimathy - Full Document

Sri La Sri Harihara Sri Gnanasambanda vs The Commissioner on 1 December, 2023

In order to substantiate the said allegation, the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri La Sri Subramania Desiga Snanasambanda Padara Sannadhi Vs State of Madras vide judgement dated 08.02.1965 reported in 1965 SCR (2) 934 (1965 AIR 1683). The present petitioner and the petitioner referred in the judgment belongs to same Mutt but different temple. In the said judgment it is seen that the administration power was granted to “Kattalai Thambiran” through the scheme framed in A.S.No.181 of 1917. The Kattalai Thambiran would be appointed by the Hereditary Trustee. After the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 the Commissioner had filed a petition under section 65(3)(a) before Sub Judge, Mayuram for modifying the scheme based on various allegations of mismanagement and full income of the temple not having been secured and safeguarded. However, the Sub Judge had rendered a finding that the allegation of mismanagement is not proved. Aggrieved over, the Government had preferred an appeal in Appeal Suit No.318 of 1954 before High Court of Madras and the scheme was approved for appointing Executive Officer and the powers of Kattalai Thambiran was granted to Executive Officer. Aggrieved over, the Mutt had filed SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the categorical finding of the Sub Court that the allegation of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/45 W.P.(MD).Nos.20194 and 20384 of 2023 mismanagement is not proved, had held that the Executive Officer cannot be appointed when the allegation of mismanagement was not proved. And further held that the appointment of Executive Officer is not necessary and had restored the power to the Kattalai Thambiran and the Executive Officer was replaced by Kattalai Thambiran. From the said judgment it is evident that Executive Officer can be appointed if there is mismanagement or for other reasons stated in the Act. Hence this Court proceeds to analyze whether there is any evidence of mismanagement.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Srimathy - Full Document

Syam K.V vs The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd on 14 February, 2011

28. Yet another contention of Sri. P.C.Sasidharan on behalf of the PSC was that the averments pleaded and materials produced in the reply affidavit cannot be considered by this court, except after such pleadings are incorporated in the writ petition by way of amendment. But I find that the reply affidavit along with Ext P27 to 34 was filed as early as on 6.7.2015, with copy to respondents i.e even before the interim order was passed by this court directing the PSC to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview provisionally. The fact that respondents had sufficient notice of the same is evident from the interim order passed by this court on 8.7.2015, which refers to the Exts.P27 and P28. As rightly contended by Sri. Elvin Peter, the objection raised is only to be repelled in the light of the following observations of the apex court in para 17 of its judgment, Sri-la Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi v. State of Madras: AIR 1965 SC 1578.:
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pepsico Inc., vs M/S Magfast Beverages on 26 October, 2022

74. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Pepsi Co was guilty of suppression of material facts. The disclaimers given by Hartman beverages came out during the evidence led by both the parties. Hence, Magfast had sought for amendment of written statement vide application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for addition of para 23A which was allowed on 17.08.2006. Admittedly, till March 2007, Pepsi Co did not file any rejoinder and as such it was treated that there was no rejoinder to be filed as per specific docket entry to that effect on docket of O.S.No.95 of 2004. In effect there was no pleading on record by 81 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.20 of 2021 & Batch Pepsi Co as to their explanation to para 23A of amended written statement filed by Magfast. Necessary adverse inference had to be drawn for failure on the part of Pepsi Co to file rejoinder, though new set of facts were brought to their notice specifically and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri-La-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambandana vs. State of Madras34 at para 17 and the judgement of High Court of Allahabad in Ajay Pratap Rai vs. District Basic Educational Officer35 at para 15, and contended that any amount of evidence without pleadings is no evidence in law.
Telangana High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammad Farook vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 May, 2015

In the present case, by introducing Section 75-A the Legislature has simply directed the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Executive Officer of Sri Thiyagarajaswami Temple to disobey or disregard the decision of the highest court of the land in S.D.G. Pandara Sannadhi v. State of Madras (1965) 2 M.L.J. 167. The obvious purpose of Section 75-A extending the impugned notification is to nullify the effect of this decision of the Supreme Court. The object in the explanatory note Ex. B-33 makes no secret of the said fact and in fact the written statements filed on behalf of the Department and the Government aver that the courts scheme was not conducive to the proper administration of the Kattalais or the supervision thereof. The steps were taken to notify. The temple and the various Kattalais attached thereto. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1965) 2 M.L.J. 167, the Government felt that the existing state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue and so in the interest of proper administration of all the religious institutions including that of Sri Thiyagarajaswami temple it was imperative to continue the earlier notifications beyond 15.7.1966. No doubt the Legislatures under the Constitution have, within the prescribed limits, power to make laws prospectively as well as retrospectively. By exercise of those powers a legislature can remove the basis of the decision rendered by a competent court thereby rendering the decision ineffective. But no Legislature in the country has power to set aside an individual decision inter-parties and affect their rights and liabilities alone.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next