Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 63 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
S. Ramaswami Poosari vs The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments ... on 20 August, 1934
“Reference was made in the judgment to the decision of Viswanatha Sastri
J. in Ramaswami v. Board of Commissioner Madras Hindu Religious
Endowments reported in (1950) 2 MLJ 511, where on account of the long
public religious worship what were originally memorials for heroes or
martyrs had subsequently developed info-temples and came to he
recognised as temples.
C. Kunhamutty vs Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar And Ors. on 11 September, 1934
A number of
decisions of this court were referred to with approval, viz, Kunhamutty V.
Ahmad Musaliar (1935) 68 Mad LJ 107 : (AIR 1935 Mad 28), A.
Draiviasundaram Pillai v. Subramania Filial, 1945-2 Mad LJ 328 : (AIR
1945 Mad 217) and Veluswami Goundan v. Dandapani, 1946-1 MLJ 354 :
Veluswami Goundan vs Dandapani Minor By Next Friend And ... on 11 January, 1946
(AIR 1946 Mad 485), for the position that the building of a Samadhi or
tomb over the remains of a person and the making of the provision for
the performance of Gurupoojas and other ceremonies in connection with
the same, cannot be recognised as charitable or religious purposes
according to Hindu Law.”
When the Courts had rendered a categorical finding that the Samadhi is not
temple and Samadhi cannot be recognized as charitable or religious purposes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18/36
A.S.(MD).No.197 of 2016
according to Hindu Law, the contention of the defendant in the present case is
against such propositions laid down by the Courts in the aforesaid judgments.
Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 13 February, 1981
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakanta Deb and
another Vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orrisa,
reported in AIR 1981 SC 798 had held to determine the temple in question is a
public or private temple then the said temple should be subjected to four tests. The
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
Kuldip Chand & Anr vs Advocate General To Government Of ... on 14 February, 2003
In the case of Kuldip Chand and another Vs. Advocate General to
Government of H.P. and others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 46, the same tests were
adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether the temple is public
or private.
T.D.Gopalan vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... on 5 April, 1966
20.In 1972 of SSC Page.329, T.D.Gopalan Vs Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras, the Supreme Court held as
follows: