Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar Of Sri ... vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... on 13 December, 1951

Sri Sabanayagar Temple vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 February, 2009

52. The distinction between right of 'religious denomination' to manage its affairs in matters of religion and to acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such property in accordance with law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Sri Shirur Mutt case [1954 SCR 1005]. In Para (17) of the judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Smartha Brahims Living In The vs Union Of India Through Its

14.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants elaborately dealt with the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in (1952) 1 MLJ 557 ( Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and another vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras and others) to impress upon the Court that Podu Deekshars are Smartha Brahmins who were declared to be a denomination. Though the State of Tamil Nadu challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said appeal was withdrawn by the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the findings that Smartha Brahmins in the State of Tamil Nadu constitute a denomination has become final and hence, they are entitled to the benefit under Article 26 of Constitution of India. Since the status of Smartha Brahmins constituting a denomination has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said issue cannot be disputed again by the defendants. He further contended that the defendants are bound by the judgment of the Division Bench and it would operate as res judicata. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that when the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue relating to the status of Smartha Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu, the same would be binding upon the parties in the 11/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1609 of 2000 subsequent proceedings in which the same issue is raised even though the parties are not the same.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

Smartha Brahims Living In The vs Union Of India Through Its

14.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants elaborately dealt with the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in (1952) 1 MLJ 557 ( Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and another vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras and others) to impress upon the Court that Podu Deekshars are Smartha Brahmins who were declared to be a denomination. Though the State of Tamil Nadu challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said appeal was withdrawn by the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the findings that Smartha Brahmins in the State of Tamil Nadu constitute a denomination has become final and hence, they are entitled to the benefit under Article 26 of Constitution of India. Since the status of Smartha Brahmins constituting a denomination has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said issue cannot be disputed again by the defendants. He further contended that the defendants are bound by the judgment of the Division Bench and it would operate as res judicata. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that when the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue relating to the status of Smartha Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu, the same would be binding upon the parties in the 11/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1609 of 2000 subsequent proceedings in which the same issue is raised even though the parties are not the same.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Adheena, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 October, 2022

"56. Thus, in view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to assume that it had jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its earlier judgment of 1951 which had attained finality. Even otherwise, the High Court has committed an error in holding that the said 54 HCJ & DVSS,J W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020, W.P.No.5105 of 2019 & W.P.No.806 of 2021 judgment in Marimuthu Dikshithar [Marimuthu Dikshithar v. State of Madras, (1952) 1 MLJ 557 sub nom Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments Board] would not operate as res judicata. Even if the Temple was neither established, nor owned by the said respondent, nor such a claim has ever been made by the Dikshitars, once the High Court in earlier judgment has recognised that they constituted "religious denomination" or section thereof and had right to administer the Temple since they had been administering it for several centuries, the question of re-examination of any issue in this regard could not arise." (emphasis supplied) "57. The relevant features of the order passed by the Commissioner are that the Executive Officer shall be in charge of all immovable properties of the institution; the Executive Officer shall be entitled to the custody of all immovables, livestock and grains; the Executive Officer shall be entitled to receive all the income in cash and kind and all offerings; all such income and offerings shall be in his custody; all the office-holders and servants shall work under the immediate control and superintendence of the Executive Officer, though subject to the disciplinary control of the Secretary of Respondent 6, etc."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Renu Tandon vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 24 January, 1992

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Laxmindra Theertha Swamiar v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments AIR 1952 Madras 612 wherein it has been observed that a writ of prohibition lies to prevent any inferior tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or even from assuming a jurisdiction which does not vest in it under law. In deciding the question whether a writ of prohibition should be issued or not, the existence of an alternative remedy is, in our opinion, an irrelevant consideration when the complaint is that an inferior tribunal is exceeding its jurisdiction or is assuming a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. If the Tribunal is permitted to exercise that jurisdiction which is objected to, if it exercises it wrongly, the mischief would be done before the alternative remedy is availed of. It is unnecessary to insist upon a party complaining that he should first suffer and submit himself to the jurisdiction which is being wrongly exercised or is wrongly exceeded and then take advantage of the alternative remedy.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Alimiya Mahmadmiya And Anr. vs Sayed Mohomed Baquir Eledroos Valde ... on 24 April, 1967

This principle was followed in a case of Raghavendra Swami Mutt v. Board of Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 150. The observations therein go further to say that the principle also applies to a case of changes of circumstances and is not confined to alteration in law. In that case, the Board has in its previous order under section 84 as it stood before amendment held that a particular institution was not a "Mutt". That was said to be a bar for raising the same point and deciding otherwise and it was held that it was not precluded from subsequently holding that it is a "Mutt". They have then said that it is always open to the Board to revise its order in view of subsequent events and circumstances. The previous decision rendered under particular circumstances cannot be regarded as conclusive and final when there is a change of circumstances including the provisions of law. Then I was referred to two other decisions of the High Court of Bombay.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad ... vs Wealth-Tax Officer, Calicut. on 21 March, 1961

In Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, a classification in relation to the object of the enactment, though based on religion, was found to be established; the court also proceeded to observe that "Article 14 does not prevent the legislature from taking up one set of institutions for legislative consideration at one tome and enacting laws in respect of them reserving the other types of institutions for consideration to a future date." If we may say so with respect, these remarks were so apposite in relation to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, which was impugned in that case.
Kerala High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next