Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (5.03 seconds)
Documents citing M.P. Anandam Pillai (Deceased) And A. ... vs The State Represented By Its Secretary ... on 13 August, 2004

C.Andiappan vs The Joint Commissioner on 14 December, 2015

28. But, this contention has arisen on account of a misreading of charges 2 and 3. Charges 2 and 3, as they have been framed, do not accuse the appellants per se of selling the properties. The charges state that the properties were sold contrary to the deed by which the endowment was created and that the appellants herein failed and neglected to take any steps for the recovery of the properties. In other words, the appropriate authority has not charged the appellants of having inherited the sins or misconduct committed by their parents. The charges accuse the appellants of not undertaking any act of reparation. Therefore, the decision in M.P.Anandam Pillai vs. State {2004 (4) CTC 368}, relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants would have no application to the case on hand. In M.P.Anandam Pillai, the hereditary trustee against whom charges were framed, died subsequently. Therefore, the Court held that the delinquencies would not survive after his death.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Saravana Pandian on 28 March, 2017

In the judgment referred to above, the learned Judge has held that under Section 54 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office and that there is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. At any rate, on the facts of this case, the Executive Officer came to be appointed only because of the alleged improper administration by the then Trustee. Now that he has expired, there can be no objection for their legal heirs to take over administration.
Madras High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 1 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Thirukayilaya Parambarai vs The Commissioner on 9 November, 2023

12. The delinquency which was attached to the then hereditary trustee which warranted the appointment of the Executive Officer does not survive anymore and now that the new set of legal heirs of the two branches have come into existence and it is also stated that there are no controversies between themselves regarding their rights, the continued administration by the Executive Officer is not warranted.” (emphasis supplied) 8 (xviii) A perusal of the above decision would make it clear that in cases where appointment of Executive Officer is made on the allegation of mismanagement by the Hereditary Trustee, the delinquency attached to the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship dies with the person and 74/84 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15841 of 2022 there is no bar for his legal representatives to take over the Hereditary Trusteeship. In the case on hand, there was allegation of mismanagement against 101st Head of the Mutt, the said allegations of mismanagement dies with vacation of office by 101st Head of the Mutt. In the absence of any mismanagement by petitioner, the 1st respondent is not justified in refusing to cancel the scheme and handover the secular administration to the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner vs Thirumalai Muthu on 30 July, 2025

9.Executive Officer came to be appointed for an endowment because of the alleged improper administration by the then trustee. Following his demise, the reasons which warranted the appointment of the Executive Officer did not survive. The legal heirs were permitted to take over the administration and it was held that the continued administration by the Executive Officer was not warranted (M.P.Anandam Pillai Vs. State 2004 (4) CTC 368)
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Shri Sanjeet Kumar vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 22 April, 2014

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contests the very nature of the applicants employment with the respondents. As averred in the counter-reply, the learned counsel states that the applicant is simply a substitute piecemeal safai karamchari. He has been working as a substitute daily wager and is not governed under Discipline and Control Rules of the MCD. The applicant had misbehaved at the work place, intimidated the superiors and forcibly marked presence of two safai karamcharies in the attendance register on 07.06.2010. When this incident was reported to the higher authorities it was decided to terminate the services of the applicant. The applicant had also filed a mercy appeal, which was examined at the appropriate level and was rejected. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Chairman-cum-MD, TNCS Corporation Ltd. & another v. K. Meerabai, 20060I-LLJ, 826, State of Tamil Nadu v. K.V. Perumal and others, 1996 (2) LLN 883, G. Anandam v. Tamil nadu Electricity Board and another, 1996 (2) LLN 1180, South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others, 2006-I-LLJ 1087 and Karnataka Band Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, 2006-I-LLJ.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1