Month: May 2017

Allotment of plot–Conditions of compeletion construction within two years not fulfilled–Plot resumed. Second Appeal–High Court dismissing the application without trying to understand what the suit is for, what was the nature of disposal of the suits by the courts below and what that document implied and what it established–Illegal.

 2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2711 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 2007…

Appeal–In a First Appeal filed under Section 96 CPC, the appellate court can go into questions of fact, whereas in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court, and it is confined only to questions of law.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2650 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 1619-1620 of…

Arbitration Agreement—Dispute which can be tackled by arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause; should not ordinarily be adjudicated by courts. Arbitration agreement—The photocopies of the lease agreements could be taken on record under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause.

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2641 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 2016 of…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.