Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing S.D.K.Rajan vs Jeddiya Sathya @ Sathya on 3 April, 2014

Rev.A.Dilipkumar vs The Church Of South India (Csi) on 29 July, 2022

6. Since the issues raised before this Court have already been raised in as many as three civil suits, it would not be proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2014-3-L.W.108 (S.D.K.Rajan Vs. Jeddiya Sathya @ Sathya) had held that CSI Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that election to the said diocese can at the most be the subject matter of a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

S.Arul Elisa Charles vs The Deputy Inspector on 5 January, 2023

4.Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that atleast two Division Benches of this Court in S.D.K.Rajan & Others Vs. Jeddiya Sathya @ Sathya & others reported in 2014 (3) LW 108 and in R.Issac Robi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education and Others reported in 2017 SCC Online Mad 2380 have taken a view that such Writ Petitions would not lie. Unfortunately, the earlier Division Bench Judgements have not been brought to the notice of either Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan or the Division Bench led by Hon'ble Mr.Justice.S.Vaidyanathan.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

R.Issac Robi vs The Secretary To Government on 30 May, 2017

13.At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to an earlier decision of this court dated 03.04.2014 in W.A (MD) 212 of 2015 & W.A (MD) 335 of 2015 in the matter of S.D.K. Rajan Vs Jeddiya Sathya, whereby after an elaborate discussion about the structure, composition and functioning of a dioceses has clearly vide para 27 held that always an election proceeding with regard to the Dioceses is not amenable under Article 226, whereas such election dispute will serve only as the subject matter of a civil court. Furthermore the petitioner has also sought ?an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 6 to 8 from in any manner disqualifying the petitioner and Ex-communicating the elected diocesan council? and further he also levels allegation that the meetings of the Diocesan are not being conducted regularly. With regard to the appellant?s prayer and the allegation, this court is of the view that the question as to who could be permitted to attend meeting and who could not be allowed is something that could be gone into only before a civil court and his fear of expulsion can only be decided in the Civil Court.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.Issac Robi vs The Secretary To Government on 30 May, 2017

13.At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to an earlier decision of this court dated 03.04.2014 in W.A (MD) 212 of 2015 & W.A (MD) 335 of 2015 in the matter of S.D.K. Rajan Vs Jeddiya Sathya, whereby after an elaborate discussion about the structure, composition and functioning of a dioceses has clearly vide para 27 held that always an election proceeding with regard to the Dioceses is not amenable under Article 226, whereas such election dispute will serve only as the subject matter of a civil court. Furthermore the petitioner has also sought ?an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 6 to 8 from in any manner disqualifying the petitioner and Ex-communicating the elected diocesan council? and further he also levels allegation that the meetings of the Diocesan are not being conducted regularly. With regard to the appellant?s prayer and the allegation, this court is of the view that the question as to who could be permitted to attend meeting and who could not be allowed is something that could be gone into only before a civil court and his fear of expulsion can only be decided in the Civil Court.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1