Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 7 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932
Dhadi Parida (After Him And) Sundari ... vs The Commissioner Of Consolidation And ... on 9 August, 2002
19.1 Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted
that if the impugned order under Annexure-17 is set aside by this
Court, it would result in revival of an invalid order of appointment of
W.P(C). NO. 1639 OF 2025
Page 23 of 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Jan-2026 17:29:43
NHT Board. He emphatically submitted that the learned Assistant
Commissioner, while sending the proposal for appointment of NHT
Board to the Government, did not comply with the mandatory
provisions of Section 27(1) of the OHRE Act. He further submitted
that in the case of Dhadi Parida (and after him) Sundari Parida and
others (supra), the Full Bench of this Court categorically held that
though no detailed enquiry by the learned Assistant Commissioner is
necessary to record a finding that a religious institution in question
did not have a Hereditary Trustee, but the learned Assistant
Commissioner must record the reason in brief the source of his
satisfaction to record the finding to the effect that the religious
institution had no Hereditary Trustee.
Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka (Dead), By ... vs Jasjit Singh & Others on 1 December, 2000
24. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon
the case law of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through LRs
(supra), in which it is held as under:
Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 October, 1999
In view of the issue involved in this case and discussions made above,
the ratio in the case of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo
(supra) is of no assistance to the Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 20. As such,
we are not in a position to accept the submissions of Mr. Palit, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Party Nos.6 to 20 and Mr.
Nath, learned counsel appearing for learned Commissioner of
Endowments.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.K.Palanisamy vs N.Arumugham & Anr on 23 July, 2009
In support of his case, Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate
also relied upon the case of P.K.Palanisamy Vs. N. Arumugham and
another; (2009) 9 SCC 173 and M/s Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs.
Orissa State Electricity Board and another; (1975) 2 SCC 436.