Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (4.86 seconds)
St.Geroge'S Jacobite Syrian Church vs Ouseph Cheriyan on 11 April, 2014 cites

Harihar Jena And Ors. vs Bhagabat Jena And Ors. on 23 March, 1987

He has also contended, relying on the decision of the Orissa High Court in Harihar Jena v. Bhagabat Jena (AIR 1987 Orissa 270) that if it is found that the notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code is not in accordance with the requirements of law, the suit has to be remitted to the trial court for issuing proper notice. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel are not decisions rendered in suits under Section 92 of the Code. As noticed above, I have held that a suit under Section 92 of the Code is a suit of special nature and it is not mandatory in a suit under Section 92 of the Code to have a publication under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code. I have also held that the notice published by the plaintiffs in the instant case is in compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the said circumstances, I do not find any merit in the said contentions of the learned counsel.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982

17. Sri.Sajan Varghese, the learned Counsel for the appellants in R.F.A.No.118 of 2015 contended, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in S.P.Mittal v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 1) that the impugned judgement which takes away the right of administration of the first defendant Church from the Patriarch faction and vests with the Catholicos faction would amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to the Parishioners belonging to the Catholicos faction under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. On the merits, the learned Counsel contended that the first defendant Church has never been a constituent Church of the Malankara Church and the same is an independent Church administered in accordance RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases 28 with Ext.B3 Udambaby.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 123 - R B Misra - Full Document

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors on 12 September, 1958

11. On 26th December 1934, the Malankara Association elected the third Catholicos as the Malankara Metropolitan and adopted a new Constitution for the Church. In the meanwhile, the Metropolitans owing allegiance to the Patriarch convened a meeting of the representatives of the Church on 22nd August, 1935 at a place called Karingachira and elected one Poulose Athanasius as the Malankara Metropolitan and two others as the Trustees of the Church properties. Thereafter, the said persons together filed O.S.No.111 of 1113 M.E. for declaration of their title as Trustees of the properties of the Church. It is alleged in the said suit that the defendants therein have gone out of the Church by establishing a new Church. The trial court rejected the said contention of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit declaring that the defendants are the lawful Trustees of the Church properties and the decision of the trial court was RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases 12 confirmed by the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira and others (AIR 1959 SC 31). While the suit O.S.No.111 of 1113 M.E. was pending, the Patriarch and the Catholicos expressed their desire to resolve the disputes. Accordingly, on 26th December, 1958, in the meeting of the Malankara Association presided over by the Catholocos and attended by the representatives of both the groups, new trustees were elected. Thereafter, the dioceses of the Church were also re-allotted to Metropolitans belonging to the Patriarch faction. In the meetings of the Malankara Association held thereafter, the members of both groups have participated and managing committees were elected for the Malankara Association comprising of representatives of both groups. It seems that the representatives of the Patriarch faction who were elected to the Malankara Association have also taken the oath of office in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Church.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 91 - Full Document
1   2 Next