Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Tarit Bhusan Rai And Anr. vs Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila ... on 16 June, 1941

Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew vs Kanta Mohan Mullick And Ors. on 19 July, 1945

The other case is Tarit Bhusan Roy v. Sree Iswar Sridkar Saligram Sila Thakur , in which Nasim Ali and Pal JJ. sitting as an appellate Bench both expressed an opinion contrary to that of Sen J. Mr. S.N. Banerjee, for the plaintiffs, argued that the above opinion was not required for the decision in Tarit Bhusan Ray's case but, even if it is not obiter, this decision is not binding upon me and, also, I am not obliged to follow the decision of Sen J. Both must receive my respectful consideration but I am at liberty to prefer whichever one of these authorities I think should be followed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jogendra Nath Naskar And Anr. on 5 April, 1963

38. A very exhaustive treatment on the subject is to be found in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tarit Bhusan v. Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur, where it is said that a Hindu idol although a juristic person, this juristic person is of a peculiar type. It is conceived by the Hindus as a living being its own interests apart from the interests of its worshippers, and it is recognised as a juristic person capable of being the subject of legal rights and duties but only in an ideal sense. See the observations at pages 490-91 of that report. Pal, J. at page 532 of that report (ILR Cal): (at p. 119 of AIR) observed as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Annada Prasad Mitra vs Sushil Kumar Mandal on 11 December, 1941

But the shebait's right to sue is analogous to that of a guardian of an infant Tarit Bhusan v. Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila . The idol of a Hindu temple is a juridical entity which holds and enjoys property dedicated to it in an ideal sense. The shebait or manager is the earthly representative who manifests the will of the deity and represents its dealings with the outside world.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Artatran Alekhagadi Brahma And Ors. vs Sudersan Mohapatra And Ors. on 29 July, 1953

8. We would, in this connexion, refer to another decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in -- 'Tarit Bhusan v. Sridhar Salagram', A. I. Rule 1942 Cal 99 (G) arising out of a case in respect of private endowment wherein the same question also cropped up for decision, that is, whether the deity can be represented by the sebait alone or any other member of the public. This was a case brought by the deity represented by the sebait wherein the defence taken was that the suit was barred under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., on account of the reason that there was a previous suit on the same cause of action brought by the deity represented by any other member of the family interested in the endowment which was dismissed for default.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next