Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
Thirumalai Muthu vs The Commissioner cites

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 6 December, 2014

12. The respondents further submit that ultimately in all the attempts the writ petitioners herein have failed and now come forward with the present writ petition praying to declare the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer and the 4th respondent as Fit Person of the temple in question as illegal in the of the judgement filed by Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763. The respondent further submit the said judgement is not applicable to the present case, since in the present case, the hereditary trustees were suspended on serious charges and the same is yet to be attained finality. Only because of the pendency of the said proceedings, as an interim measure, Department have appointed the Fit person. Therefore the continuance of the Fit Person and Executive Officer of the temple https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 in question can only be reviewed after the final orders were passed in the Department to action taken against the hereditary trustees. Hence question of reviewing the decision does not arise at this stage. It is also pertinent to note that that are six hereditary trustees in which only first petitioner hearing have come up with the grievance of reviewing the continuance of Fit Person and Executive Officer of the temple in question. In fact, the first petitioner hearing is the cause for suspending the hereditary trustees and further to hereditary trustees namely Rajaraman and Thirumalai Jaipal, Muthu had given complaint against the first petitioner. On enquiry, which resulted in initiation of the department to enquiry and all the hereditary trustees have been suspended. At this stage discontinuance of the service of Fit Person and Executive Officer to the temple in question only affects the smooth administration of the temple. Therefore the respondents submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed in limini. The respondents reserves their right to file additional counter affidavit if and when required. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 195 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Jagir Singh vs Ranbir Singh & And on 9 November, 1978

“It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of “quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud”. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by “shift or contrivance”.” (See also: Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, AIR 1979 SC 381; A.P. Diary Dev.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 83 - O C Reddy - Full Document

N.Balasubramanian vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 October, 2017

a. W.P.(MD)No.20915 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 in Arulmigu Angala Eswari Amman Temple Vs. Commissioner b. N.Sivasubramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) CTC 49 c. Arulmigu Athanoorammal Podarayasamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Department reported in CDJ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 2012 MHC 3783 d. R.R. Thirupathy and others Vs. Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment reported in (2015) 3 LW 106 e. H.H.Sankarachari Seamigal Kanchi Kamakodi Peetam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.23096 of 2013 dated 12.02.2020 f. Sri Ram Samaj Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2022 (4) MLJ 449 e. Solaimuthuraja Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2010 (2) CTC 289 f. R.Shanmugasundram Vs. Commissioner of HR & CE (1991 2 MLJ 582) g. W.P.(MD)No.22398 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

R. China Boyan And Ors. vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 10 March, 1975

a. W.P.(MD)No.20915 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 in Arulmigu Angala Eswari Amman Temple Vs. Commissioner b. N.Sivasubramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) CTC 49 c. Arulmigu Athanoorammal Podarayasamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Department reported in CDJ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 2012 MHC 3783 d. R.R. Thirupathy and others Vs. Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment reported in (2015) 3 LW 106 e. H.H.Sankarachari Seamigal Kanchi Kamakodi Peetam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.23096 of 2013 dated 12.02.2020 f. Sri Ram Samaj Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2022 (4) MLJ 449 e. Solaimuthuraja Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2010 (2) CTC 289 f. R.Shanmugasundram Vs. Commissioner of HR & CE (1991 2 MLJ 582) g. W.P.(MD)No.22398 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

H.H.Sankaracharya Swamigal Kanchi ... vs The Govt. Of Tamil Nadu on 16 May, 2013

a. W.P.(MD)No.20915 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 in Arulmigu Angala Eswari Amman Temple Vs. Commissioner b. N.Sivasubramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) CTC 49 c. Arulmigu Athanoorammal Podarayasamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Department reported in CDJ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 2012 MHC 3783 d. R.R. Thirupathy and others Vs. Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment reported in (2015) 3 LW 106 e. H.H.Sankarachari Seamigal Kanchi Kamakodi Peetam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.23096 of 2013 dated 12.02.2020 f. Sri Ram Samaj Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2022 (4) MLJ 449 e. Solaimuthuraja Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2010 (2) CTC 289 f. R.Shanmugasundram Vs. Commissioner of HR & CE (1991 2 MLJ 582) g. W.P.(MD)No.22398 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next