Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Article 25 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri ... on 16 April, 1954
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 08:47:41 pm )
O.S.A.Nos.10 to 13, 15 and 16 of 2026
No doubt about it that a religious denomination or
organisation enjoys a complete autonomy in the matter
of deciding as to rites and ceremonies essential
according to their tenets of religion they hold and no
outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with
their decisions in such matters. At the same time, secular
matters can be controlled by the secular authorities in
accordance with the law laid down by the competent
legislature as laid down in the case of Commr., Hindu
Religious Endowments Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [Commr., Hindu Religious
Endowments Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 SC 282].
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 April, 2005
18. It must also be pointed out the right to profess, practice and
propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is
subject to restrictions. The secular aspects of religion including the
administration of its management and properties can be subjected
to State control as was held by the Supreme Court in
M.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2005)
11 SCC 45, wherein it was held that the management of a temple is
a secular act.
K.S. Varghese vs St.Peter'S & Paul'S Syrian Orth.. on 3 July, 2017
In the context of Christians, this position has been
made clear in the case of K.S.Varghese Vs. St.Peter's & ST. Paul's
Syrian Orthodox Church, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 333, and the
same reads as follows:
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
9.In Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D Kania reported in
(1981) 4 SCC 8, the Apex Court has culled out the following principles:
T.V. Tuljaram Row vs M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar on 29 September, 1910
8.Similarly, in a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in TV
Tuljaram Row Vs. MKRV Alagappa Chettiar reported in ILR (1912) 35
Mad 1, Hon’ble Chief Justice Sir Arnold White had formulated a
comprehensive definition of the expression “judgment” in the following
terms:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
11.In A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S.Chellappan and others
reported in (2000) 7 SCC 695, in paragraph 13, the Apex Court clearly
says that any interim order passed by the court would be appelable under
Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC and the choice is for the party affected by the
order either to move the appellate court or to approach the same court
which passed the ex parte order for any relief.
1