Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Kakinada Annadana Samajam Etc vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... on 2 December, 1970

Kum. Shashikala, vs Smt. Babita Sharma, on 2 May, 2018

In fact as can be seen from the provisions and also can be seen from the expressions of the Apex Court 40 Dr. SSRB, J CRP.No.4596 of 2017 particularly in Annadana Samajam Vs. Commissioner34, the duties of Executive Officer to discharge secular duties are different to the discharge of religious and charitable duties by a trust board (hereditary/non-hereditary as the case may be). Thus for every religious and charitable institution for discharge of religious and charitable duties there must be a trust board. It was in the absence of reconstitution new trust board from the life of earlier trust board expired and other than to such institutions there is no founder or member from the family of the founder as the case may be, a person in charge of management or as single trustee as the case may be and only as a stop gap arrangement that can be made for a short tenure till such reconstitution that too in case of non-hereditary trust board from tenure of earlier one ceased and new one not constituted as in case of trust board that to be invariably headed by its hereditary trustee as chairman in case where there is a founder or member from the family of the founder as the case may be he/she can even after expiry of tenure of trust board and till constitution of new trust board that to be appointed, act as person in charge for no others that can be as can be seen from the provisions referred supra, more particularly with reference to the amendments including by the Act 33/2007 to the Act. It is also for the reason, the Executive Officer's powers and functions are as can be seen from Section 29(3) of the Act for carrying out all lawful directions issued by such trustee/trust board from time to time and subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by the Government, responsible for the proper maintenance and custody of all the records, accounts and other documents and valuable jewellery, money, funds and other properties of the Institution or Endowment, arrange for the proper collection of income and for incurring of expenditure, sue or be sued and to continue 34 1971 SCWR 22 41 Dr. SSRB, J CRP.No.4596 of 2017 in pending legal proceedings and in cases of emergency to direct the execution of any work subject to limitation and with the prior approval of the trustee institute any legal proceedings in the name of the institution or endowment or defend any such legal proceeding and shall be the employee of the Government and the conditions of his service being determined to draw salary, allowances out of the consolidated fund of the State and later to be recouped from the Endowment Administrative Fund, leave about other and general duties as being ordained by the trust board to the Executive Officer in the interest of the institution and its devotees or disciples as the case may be and in order to foster faith, devotion and ethical conduct in the society, by facilitating formation of a Bhaktha Samajam on voluntary basis, consisting of the devotees to periodically organize Bhajans, Religious discourses devotional and other Religious programmes such as Nagara Sankeertans etc., appropriate to the Custom, Usage, Tradition and Sampradayams etc. Thus an Executive Officer of any religious or charitable institution cannot supersede a trustee/trust board once there is any trustee/trust board duly appointed and in case once there is a hereditary trustee to such institution being its founder or member of the family of the founder. So far as trustees concerned, unless the trustee/s is/are suspended or removed under Section 28 of the Act is/are entitled to act during the tenure of the trust board other than for hereditary trustees recognized by the amended Act No.33/2007 w.e.f. 31.01.2008 including in saying the constitution of trust board under Section 15 shall be with inclusion of a founder or member of the family of the founder besides archaka being Ex-Officio member. From this it cannot be ignored of the change of law after the amendment by Acts 27/2002 & 33/2007 including by amendment to Sections 29, 15 & 17 of the Act in particular.
Telangana High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.V. Raghavacharyulu vs Deputy Commissioner Endowments ... on 28 July, 1983

8. Sri Ramaiah contended that the authority of this judgment is very much shaken as the Supreme Court in Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad held that the office of the hereditary trustee is not property within the ..........ing of Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Grover, J., held that a hereditary trustee has no proprietary or beneficial interest either in the corpus or in the usufruct of the estate and the office of the hereditary trustee cannot be equated to a Shebait of a religious institution or a Mathadhipathi or a Mahant and his duties and obligations are same as that of a Dharmakarta or a mere manager or custodian of an institution or endowment and hence there is no justification in holding that the office of the heretaryship is a property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Executive Officer, Group Temples, ... vs Dasaratha Rama Rao And Others on 28 April, 1999

The Act came into force from 15th May, 1987. Thus from the said date the Office of Hereditary trustee stood abolished. The petitioners in all the cases being hereditary trustees have therefore, no right to manage the trust in question after abolition of Office of Hereditary trustee. In fact even before abolition of the rights of hereditary-trustee, the only right the hereditary trustee could have was a bare right to manage and administer. The hereditary trustees never had any proprietary or beneficial interest either in the corpus or usufructs of the Trust. This was so held in Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, . The only right of petitioners was to manage the Trust so long as the Office of the Hereditary Trust existed. Once that office was abolished, it was a necessary consequence that somebody else has to be appointed for management of the Trust by the authorities. The Act no where refers any rights of the Hereditary Trustees of the management of the Trust to continue till Board of Trustee is appointed for a particular Endowment under Section 15 of the Act. In such circumstances, Section 8 of the Act has to come into play. The Commissioner would not only be justified but is enjoined to exercise his supervisory powers to administer the concerned management by appointing an appropriate person- incharge to look after the management.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - A S Bhate - Full Document

Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 16 December, 2005

21. The power to appoint Executive Officers, is normally exercised for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. (Kakinada Annadana Samajam, (supra)). The power of general superintendence and control which inheres in the Commissioner and Additional Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act is conditioned by a statutory instruct that such a power of superintendence and control is for the purpose of ensuring that the institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated 'for the purpose for which they were found or exist'. The wide powers of superintendence and control consecrated on the Commissioner of Endowments cannot be understood as an uncanalised power of an infinite extent for absolute power there never is in a constitutional democracy. The power under Section 8 of the Act is conditioned by a specific statutory instruct that sets out the limits of the superintendence of power conferred on the Commissioner.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

S.S. Jain Sabha (Of Rawalpindi), Delhi ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 5 February, 1975

(41) Further, there is no pleading by the Arya Samaj petitioners that the schools established by them are for charitable purposes. A school may be either a business proposition or may be a charitable institution. The question whether it is a charitable institution is essentially one of fact. It cannot be raised muchless decided without a pleading and evidence. This can best be done by way of a suit in a civil court. (Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, , the ratio of which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Arya Vyasa Sabha v. The Commissioner of Hndus Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments, (Civil Appeal Nos. 1984 1986 and 2115 of 1970 and 106 of 1971, decided on 24th November, 1975) (19).
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 8 April, 1987

In Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commr of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, , the question arose as to whether the office of the hereditary trustee is property within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f) or Art. 31. The answer was given in the negative by pointing out that the hereditary trustees of institutions generally have only .3 bare right to manage and administer the secular estate: of the institution or the endowment and they do not have proprietary or beneficial interest either: in corpus or in the usufruct of the estate. Here also as per the scope of the rules govering the institution and the Charitable society that is the resultant position with reference to the holders of life officer who are entrusted with the management of the properties as trustee thereof. The Associations as such are not being deprived of their properties. Hence, I have to eschew this contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners that there is a violation of Art 19(1)(f) of the Constitution by the introduction of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975.
Madras High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sri Ganesha Parvathi Sametha ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 22 March, 2018

In fact as can be seen from the provisions and also can be seen from the expressions of the Apex Court particularly in Annadana Samajam Vs. Commissioner , the duties of Executive Officer to discharge secular duties are different to discharge of religious and charitable duties by trust board (hereditary/non- hereditary) and in absence of trust board by a person incharge of management as a stop gap and in case non-hereditary trust board tenure ceased and new one not constituted and in case of hereditary trustees where there is a founder family member who can act even after expiry of tenure of trust board till new trust board to be appointed, where founder family member must be the Chairman and archaka an ex-officio member.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B S Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next