Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Immidisetti Dhanaraju And Ors. vs Motilal Daga, Trading Under The Name And ... on 19 February, 1929
(i) (Immidisetti) Dhanaraja and another versus Motilal
Daga and another AIR 1929 Madras 641:
Pritam Dass Mahant vs Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak ... on 16 January, 1983
In Pritam Das Mahant versus Shiromani Gurudwara
Parbandhak Committee (1984) 2 S.C.C. 600 this Court held
that the central object of worship in a gurudwara is Shri
Guru Granth Sahib and sine qua non is that Guru Granth Sahib
should be established there and worshipped by the
congregation and that there should be a `Nishan-Sahib'. The
Court held that the following aspects themselves negatived
the institution being a gurudwara.
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak ... vs Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors on 29 March, 1984
In Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar versus
Mahant Kirpa Ram and others : (1984) 2 S.C.C. 614 this Court
held that were an Institution was established by a follower
of udasi sect to commemorate the memory of his guru and
succession of mahantship was guru to chela, the institution
was not a sikh institution. The Bench has elaborately dealt
with the requirements of Section 16(2) (iii) of the Act and
pointed out the distinction between the sikhs and udasis.
Hem Singh vs Mahant Basant Das on 23 January, 1936
The Bench quoted with approval a passage in the judgment of
the Privy Council in Hem Singh versus Basant Das, AIR 1936
P.C. 93 wherein the distinction between udasis and sikhs was
clearly recognized. The Bench pointed out that while the
udasis generate the sikh scriptures they also keep the old
Hindu practices.
Section 8 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1