Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 72 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 13 February, 1981
16. Again, in Radhakanta Deb and another vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, 1981 AIR 798, Court observed that whenever a dedication is made for religious purposes and deity installed in a temple, the worship of the deity is a necessary concomitant of the installation of the deity, and therefore, the mere factum of worship would not determine the nature of the endowment. Court further held :
Kuldip Chand & Anr vs Advocate General To Government Of ... on 14 February, 2003
In Kuldip Chand and others Vs. Advocate General to Government of Himachal Pradesh and others (2003) 5 SCC 46, the question up for consideration was "Whether the mere use of a premises as a 'Dharamsala' for about 125 years would lead to an inference that the same belongs to a public trust". One Raj Kumar Bir Singh, owner of Nahan Estate, constructed a Dharamsala on a land measuring 1702 sq. yards. In the town of Nahan, public in general, travellers and in particular those taking part in an yearly fair known as Renuka Fair could be stayed in the said Dharmsala for a period of three days without permission of owner and thereafter, permission was necessary. Claiming it to be a Trust property, a suit was filed by Advocate General of the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure alleging that Dharmsala was dedicated to public. Learned Single Judge held that there was no public trust created. Division Bench reversed the judgment and matter came to Supreme Court. Court held that a Hindu is entitled to dedicate his property for religious and charitable purposes but intention and purpose must be cleared. It is said that :-
Sri Gedela Satchidananda Murthy (D) By ... vs Dy. Commnr., Endowments Deptt., A.P. & ... on 15 May, 2007
In Sri Gedela Satchidananda Murthy Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. & Others, (2007) 5 SCC 67, Court following its earlier judgment in Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan (supra) reiterated "We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that only because members of the public are freely admitted to the temple, that by itself would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the temple was a public institution."
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur & Ors on 21 August, 2006
In State of West Bengal Vs. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, (2006) 7 SCC 490, Court laid down relevant factors in determining whether a trust is public or not and said as under :
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs The State Of Rajasthan And Others on 21 January, 1963
13. A Constitution Bench considered this question "whether a Hindu Temple is private or public and how it can be determined" in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan and Others AIR 1963 SC 1638. It held that a temple belonging to a family which is a private temple is not 'Unknown' to Hindu law. It may also happen that a religious reputation of founder of such private temple is of such a high order that it may attract devotees in large numbers. Court said that the mere fact that a large number of devotees are allowed to worship in the temple would not necessarily make the private temple a public temple. In order to become a public temple, it can be built by subscriptions raised by public and a deity installed to enable all the members of public to offer worship and such a temple would clearly be a public temple. Court said that in order to determine the public or private nature of temple, certain facts, which may be considered, are :