Month: May 2017

Partnership Act, 1932 – Sections 2, 18, 19, 22 and 28 – Order to provide security – Defendants disputing the liability as partners of the firm – Disputed amount paid to the firm by cheque which was credited in the account of firm – Even under the Partnership Act prima facie the plaintiff could enforce his claim not only as against the firm but also as against its partners

  AIR 2008 SC 1170 : (2008) 1 CLT 205 : (2008) 1 JT 666 : (2008) 151 PLR 637 : (2008) 2 SCALE 119 : (2008) 2 SCC 724…

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.