Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Sri. Jagadguru Channabasavananada ... vs Basavadharma Peetha Religious And ... on 16 January, 2023
cites
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya ... vs Gadag Veeranarayana Dev And Ors. on 7 June, 2001
19. Learned counsel relied upon decision of this Court
in Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi & Ors. Vs.
Gadag Veera-Narayana Dev & Ors. reported in AIR 2002
Kar.1, for proposition that removal on basis of vague
allegations without material particulars such as date, time
and place and nature or specific description of alleged act and
mode and manner in which it was done by plaintiff would be
illegal even if delinquent participated in enquiry. Removal
would therefore be illegal.
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
20. He also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dorab Cavasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden
& Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 867 for proposition that
mandatory injunction could be granted on interlocutory
applications also.
Sri Gowrishankara Swamigalu vs Sri Siddhaganga Mutt on 31 March, 1989
In Sri. Siddhaganga Mutt's case, this Court was
faced with situation where there was likelihood of parallel
administration by two pontiffs competing to be Mahant. Such
is not situation herein.
Mohd Mehtab Khan & Ors vs Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors on 24 January, 2013
Further,
reliance upon decision on Mohd. Mehtab Khan's case (supra)
would also be misconceived, as it is an authority for
proposition that satisfaction to be recorded by trial Court
would be of highest order while granting mandatory temporary
34
injunction, unlike in instant case, where no mandatory
temporary injunction is sought. Therefore, none of
propositions are substantiated by defendants.
M/S Mother Theresa Educaiton Society ... vs Shri Muniyappa on 11 July, 2017
38. Insofar as meager or negligible benefit accruing to
plaintiff from grant of temporary injunction as sought for, Trial
29
Court observed that since plaintiff is a sanyasi, there would be
no real benefit by grant of temporary injunction as trusteeship
is not attached with any financial or other benefits. It has also
taken note of plaintiff's conduct after grant of ex-parte ad-
interim injunction while observing that relation between
plaintiff and defendants was not cordial and grant of injunction
was not feasible. Though acceptance of sanyasa deekshe
would mean renouncement of temporal world, but in a society
which has subscribed to governance by rule of law with
fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution of India, and a
claim for enforcing said rights is laid before Court of law, Court
would not be justified in denying same on ground of plaintiff
having renounced the world. Ratio of decisions in
Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi and M/s
Mother Therasa Education Society (R) (supra) cases would
be testimony enough for said proposition. Said reasoning of
trial Court would not be justified.
Christopher Karkada vs Church Of South India on 19 November, 2011
Learned counsel relied upon
Division Bench decision in case of Christopher Karkada &
17
Ors. Vs. Church of South India represented by its
Moderator and Ors. reported in ILR 2012 Kar.725, for
proposition that trustee would only be legal owner of Trust
property, but not its beneficial owner as same would vest in
beneficiary. Therefore, even without beneficial ownership,
trustee would be entitled to protect his legal ownership.
The Bengal Freemasons' Trust ... vs District Grand Lodge Of Mark Master ... on 17 April, 2014
26. He also relied upon decision of High Court of
Calcutta in case of Bengal Freemason's Trust Association
v/s District Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons' of
21
Bengal and Ors., reported in AIR 2018 Cal. 209, for
proposition that claim for injunction cannot be in respect of
non-suit property.
1