Month: May 2017

Complaint should contain averment that accused were incharge of the business of the company – Complainant bound to make statement on oath as to how offence was committed and accused persons were responsible therefor – Appellants were not Directors of the Company at the relevant time – Impugned order directing issue of process cannot be sustained and set aside.

  AIR 2006 SC 3086 : (2007) 2 BC 210 : (2006) 6 CompLJ 290 : (2006) CriLJ 4602 : (2006) 12 JT 20 : (2006) 9 SCALE 212 :…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 23, Rule 3A – Bar to suit – Suit for Declaration and injunction – Agreement to develop plot of trust and construction of community hall – A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid out of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable as consideration – Categorical finding of fact that earlier suit was filed with the knowledge and consent of all the trustees not disturbed

  (2006) 5 CTC 93 : (2006) 12 JT 69 : (2006) 9 SCALE 174 : (2006) 10 SCC 669 : (2006) 6 SCR 48 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA…

Insurance company, despite report of investigator, failed to establish that the case of appellants was not justified and not covered by insurance policy – Insurance company had approved appellant’s claim for Rs. 20,43,605/- – Insurance company directed to pay to appellants balance amount of Rs. 97,83,827/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim till payment.

  (2006) ACJ 2547 : AIR 2006 SC 3261 : (2006) 6 CompLJ 281 : (2006) 4 CPJ 3 : (2006) 12 JT 98 : (2006) 9 SCALE 293 :…

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.