Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri ... on 16 April, 1954

51. From the above, it is clear that as regards the affairs of the temple in the matter of religion, the right of management to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right, which no legislature can take away. On the other hand, as regards the administration of the properties, which a religious denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it is the right to administer such properties, but only in accordance with law, meaning thereby, the State can regulate the administration of the property of the religious denomination by means of law validly enacted. To put it otherwise, it is the religious denomination, which has been given the right to administer those properties in accordance with law. (Vide Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shri Laxmindra Theertha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282).
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 618 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

S. Azeez Basha And Anr vs Union Of India on 20 October, 1967

54. "The phrase, "establish and maintain" cannot be separated. It shall be read conjunctively. Only when a religious denomination or a Section thereof established a religious institution, it gets the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion with respect to that institution. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the temple is a denominational temple, can be accepted only if the appellant proves that they established the religious institution and that they are part of a religious denomination and that they are administering the same continuously.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 100 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

The Durgah Committee, Ajmer Andanother vs Syed Hussain Ali And Others on 17 March, 1961

45. Hence, the said judgment in Shirur mutt's case even though between the same parties, being primarily on a different question, would not bar the adjudication of the character of the Podhu Dikshidars as a sect or the nature and the character of the temple and thus the principles of res judicata would clearly not apply to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 103 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next