Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 174 (5.05 seconds)
Documents citing Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995

Rohit Malik vs State on 11 December, 2025

Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 12/30 12:58:40 +0530 not dispute his presence at the scene of crime nor provided any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by complainant 'M'. Appellant had failed to create any dent in the case of prosecution or to shake the credibility of the complainant 'M' during the course of cross examination. The testimony of complainant 'M' had remained consistent, natural and trustworthy and no material has emerged in cross examination of complainant 'M' to discredit her deposition. Statement of complainant 'M' inspires confidence and is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. Non production of named material witnesses servant Raju and his wife alleged by defence to be present at the scene of crime leads to making out case for invocation of Illustration (g) of Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, as if servant Raju and his wife were examined in defence on production, they would likely not have supported the case of defence. Deposition of DW2 is merely a repetition of deposition of DW1 and is evidently biased, being an interested witness, thus closely associated with appellant. When taken as a whole, the prosecution evidence is consistent, cogent and convincing. The acts of accused appellant, as narrated by complainant 'M', clearly establish that appellant had used criminal force on complainant 'M' with the intention to outrage her modesty; which fulfill the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The evidence also shows that the appellant accused voluntarily caused hurt to complainant 'M', satisfying the essential elements of Section 323 IPC. The threats extended by appellant, coupled with his conduct and the surrounding circumstances, were of such a grave nature as to cause alarm to complainant 'M' and fall squarely within the Digitally signed by GURVINDE GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manvi Chopra vs State on 11 December, 2025

Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 12/30 12:58:40 +0530 not dispute his presence at the scene of crime nor provided any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by complainant 'M'. Appellant had failed to create any dent in the case of prosecution or to shake the credibility of the complainant 'M' during the course of cross examination. The testimony of complainant 'M' had remained consistent, natural and trustworthy and no material has emerged in cross examination of complainant 'M' to discredit her deposition. Statement of complainant 'M' inspires confidence and is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. Non production of named material witnesses servant Raju and his wife alleged by defence to be present at the scene of crime leads to making out case for invocation of Illustration (g) of Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, as if servant Raju and his wife were examined in defence on production, they would likely not have supported the case of defence. Deposition of DW2 is merely a repetition of deposition of DW1 and is evidently biased, being an interested witness, thus closely associated with appellant. When taken as a whole, the prosecution evidence is consistent, cogent and convincing. The acts of accused appellant, as narrated by complainant 'M', clearly establish that appellant had used criminal force on complainant 'M' with the intention to outrage her modesty; which fulfill the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The evidence also shows that the appellant accused voluntarily caused hurt to complainant 'M', satisfying the essential elements of Section 323 IPC. The threats extended by appellant, coupled with his conduct and the surrounding circumstances, were of such a grave nature as to cause alarm to complainant 'M' and fall squarely within the Digitally signed by GURVINDE GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.John'S Jacobite Syrian Church vs Rev. Fro.John Moolamattom on 17 August, 2011

In order to have the advantage of the status quo order declared by the apex court in P.M.A. Metropolitan V. Moran Mar Marthoma {AIR 1996 SC 3121} certain conditions had to be satisfied. The Patriarch group was unable to comply with the condition they were left without a metropolitan. Though an attempt was made to install a :3: R.P.No. 269 of 20011 Metropolitan who had also attempted to take over the administration of the Patriarch group of the church in question, the said attempt failed. That resulted in open war between the two groups resulting in law and order problem, compelling the intervention of the executive Magistrate. Proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated and the church was taken over. The plaintiff in the suit, who is also the petitioner in I.A.2119/2000 was allowed to continue as the Asst. Vicar. Two other persons were kept out of the church. The said understanding was entered into on 20.01.1998. Eversince then the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit has been discharging spiritual matters of the church without any interference.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) And Anr. ... vs M. Pappy (Dead) And Anr. Etc. on 28 August, 2018

228.18. The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-à-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised. 228.19. The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286, it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be 14 blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment4. The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 4 has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of writ petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar, etc. in violation of the 1995 judgment4 of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Johnson Kuriakose vs Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban on 18 December, 2018

228.3. The Most Rev.P.M.A Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (1995(2) KLT SN 28 (C.No.37) SC = 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 286) arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to S.11 C.P.C. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit i.e., Samudayam suit are also binding on parish churches/parishioners to the extent issues have been decided.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A Hariprasad - Full Document

Mohan M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews Li ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 4 April, 2007

14. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would moreover submit that different Benches of the High Court may take different views in regard to the interpretation of the judgments of this Court in Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan (supra), and in support thereof has placed before us a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the said Court in St. George Jacobie Syrian Christian Church & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., passed in Writ Petition (c ) No.32114/2006, wherein a view different from the one taken by the Division Bench of he High Court of Kerala in the impugned judgment, has been taken. We, however, having regard to the opinion expressed hereinbefore and furthermore in view of the fact that, admittedly, a Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst has been filed by the aggrieved parties before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, do not intend to go into the said contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S. Thirunavukkarasu And Anr. vs J. Jayalalitha And Anr. on 27 August, 1997

40. The learned counsel cited few more decisions in support of his submission, which are not directly on the point although some inferences were to be drawn from the said decisions. Further in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in "Most Rev. R.M.A. Metropolitan and Ors. v. Moron Mar Marthoma and Anr., 1995 Supp (4) S.C.C. 286, we consider it unnecessary to refer to the other decisions cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. Paragraph 28 of the said Judgment reads:-
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next