Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments act 1997 section 10 qualifications for archakas Court: chennai madurai

Apr 29 2016 (HC)

T. Sathish Vs. The Commissioner, O/o. The Commissioner (HR and CE), Hi ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... . vr. shanmuganathan, the learned special government pleader invited the attention of this court to rule no.11 of religious institutions (lease of immovable property) rules, 1963, framed under the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 and submissions were advanced that it is for the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowment, chennai, respondent no.1 in the appeals, who is the competent authority, to decide the fixation of rent ..... just 40 square feet. representations seemed to have been given before the joint commissioner/executive officer, hindu religious and charitable endowment, suseendram head office, kanyakumari district, respondent no.2, in the appeals. 10. when rules 11 of religious institutions (lease of immovable property) rules, 1963, states that the commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments is the competent authority to decide, in terms of the said rules, the joint commissioner of ..... than what he possess and if direct tenant's of lease had come to an end, sub-lessee could not claim better right. therefore, notice issued under section 106 of the transfer of property act, 1882 was valid. (arulmigu sathivaneswaraswamy temple v. habib rahman, 2014 (6) ctc 37). 9. reading of the rules makes it clear that it is to the commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2016 (HC)

KM.NKM.NKM.Nallakaruppan Chettiar and Another Vs. The Joint Commission ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... that on that score, the writ petition is to be thrown out. 14. the prime contention advanced on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 is that under section 63(b) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, the first respondent can decide as to whether the office of trusteeship is hereditary or not? and further the first respondent/joint commissioner ..... article 19(1)(f) of the constitution. the supreme court countenanced that the position of hereditary trustee was that of a dharmakartha of a mere manager or custodian of a religious institution with an exception namely, that the hereditary trustee succeeded to the office as of right and in accordance with rules of succession. once it is countenanced that succession as of ..... passing of an order by this court in directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 viz., the joint commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments board and the assistant commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments board, paramakudi, sivagangai district to consider their representations dated 11.07.2016. 10. the learned counsel for the petitioners cites a decision of this court between chettimai c.nanjappa chettiar (decd.) and another .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2016 (HC)

M. Balasubramaniam Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... as a lessee subject to rules and regulations which is contrary to the tamil nadu religious institutions (lease of immovable property) rules 1963 and the second respondent cannot give any such direction contrary to section 78 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959. 10. it is further stated that the fourth respondent has also filed a petition before ..... filed this writ petition inter alia contending that the very initiation of proceedings under section 78 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 itself is illegal and void, since the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant and the third respondent is an religious institution, a public trust and the relationship between the third respondent and the fourth ..... to refer section 21 (1) and (2) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 which reads as follows:- 21. power of commissioner to call for records and pass orders:- (1)the commissioner may call for and examine the record of [any joint or deputy or assistant commissioner] or of any trustee of a religious institution other than ..... which become final. since the lease period was over, the fourth respondent was treated as an encroacher, therefore, eviction proceedings was initiated under section 78 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959. the order of the second respondent, dated 02.11.2011, directing the third respondent to recognise the petitioner as a cultivating tenant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2016 (HC)

The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious, ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... 6. the learned single judge proceeded as if fit person appointed to perform the functions of the board of trustees under section 47(1) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, is the head of office of the executive officer. 7. the executive officer is not a subordinate of ..... the executive officer is not bound to implement the decisions taken by the fit person in violation of the provisions of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, we are not interfering with the ultimate order passed by the learned single judge setting aside the punishment. 14. the ..... hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 and the rules made thereunder. we are, therefore, not in a position to approve the views of the learned single judge that the role of executive officer is very limited and he is bound to implement the decisions taken by the board of trustees/fit person. 8. the respondent is well aware that under rule 11 of the religious institutions ..... respondent is still in service. we are, therefore, of the view that a lenient view should be taken in the matter. discretionary jurisdiction: 10. the jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india is extraordinary in nature. it is otherwise called as equity jurisdiction. the court is not ..... writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the letters patent praying to set aside the order of writ court dated 30.10.2009 in w.p.(md)no.7048 of 2006.) k.k. sasidharan, j. 1. this intra-court appeal is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2016 (HC)

P. Krishnamoorthy and Others Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... hindu religious and charitable endowments administration department. 12. also, he refers to section 116 (1) (x) of the tamilnadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, under the caption 'power to make rules', in and by which, the government may by notification make rules to carry out the purpose of the act and in fact, section 116 (1) (x) speaks of the proper collection of the income and the incurring of the expenditure by religious institutions ..... rule-making authority thought it advisable to empower the election officer to adjourn the meeting, they have specified so explicitly. the election officer is not empowered to decide about the qualification or disqualification of elected members of the society. the summary enquiry contemplated by r.22 (9) is for specific purpose. the rule-making authority did not intend that the meeting ..... others v. the joint commissioner, h.r. and c.e. administration department, sivagangai and others reported in 1997 (2) mlj 529, wherein at paragraph nos.10 and 11, it is observed as under:- 10. learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the act do not permit removal of a hereditary trustees on the ground of his becoming very old, as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2016 (HC)

Saravana Pandian Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principa ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... represented on behalf of the petitioner that the commissioner/hr and ce department/same person is acting in dual capacity and by invoking section 45(1) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, he has predetermined to pass order for taking over of the institution before disposing of the enquiry proceedings. yet another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is ..... years shall be made in accordance with the provisions contained in section 34.? 64. as a matter of fact, section 6 (22) of tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, defines 'trustee' meaning any person or body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration of religious institution is vested and includes any person or body who or which ..... filed by the petitioner), as per order dated 07.01.2015. in fact, this court while setting aside the order of the joint commissioner, hrandce department, dated 29.10.2014, had remitted back the matter to the joint commissioner, who was directed to pass appropriate orders afresh pursuant to his earlier order. 12. it transpires that the ..... of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959. 65. to put it precisely, the power of commissioner under the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, and while exercising such powers, the principles to be borne in mind are explained in the decision in p.l.s.k.r.l. chandramouleeswaran v. commissioner, h.r. and c.e., 1997 (2) mlj, 588. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2016 (HC)

M. Chellamuthu Vs. Sengalmalai Arulmigu Varadaraja Perumal and Others

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... hereditary trustees of the suit temples. they have also stated the reason for instituting the civil suit to decide as to who is the hereditary trustees. as contemplated under section 63 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowment act, the authorities of the hindu religious and charitable endowment department have got powers to decide as to whether the office of the trusteeship ..... petition. according to mr.r.vijayakumar, any dispute in respect of the management of a religious institution shall be resolved only by the authorities constituted under the act and as contemplated under section 108 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowment act, 1959 (tamil nadu act 22 of 1959), the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. he has also fairly ..... then was has observed as under: it is by now well-settled that the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner under section 57(b) of the hindu religious and charitable endowments act of 1951 corresponding to section 63(b) of tamil nadu act xxii of 1959 is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee, ..... 10. as observed in opening paragraphs, the revision petitioner/first defendant has also not stated any reason in the grounds of revision to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. in ground no.5, the revision petitioner has stated that the status of office of particular temple has to be decided only by the authorities under the hindu religious and charitable endowments act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2016 (HC)

Arulmighu Pandimuneeswarar Thirukoil Parambarai Maruthuvar Sangam, Vs. ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... mind that section 63 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act,1959(hereinafter called as the act )relates to the resolution of disputes specified therein by the joint or deputy commissioner. indeed, in terms of the ingredients of section 63 of the act, the deputy commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments board has been given the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an institution is a religious institution. also, as per section 63(e ..... ) of the act, where any ..... person is entitled by customs or otherwise to to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution and what the established usage of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2016 (HC)

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Through its Join ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... law :- 1. whether the subject suit is maintainable, since in the light of section 63(a) and (b) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act 22 of 1959, it is the joint commissioner, who has the initial jurisdiction to determine, if the suit temple is a public religious institution or not? 2. whether the lower appellate court was justified in inferring, in favour ..... of dw1 in proper perspective and allowed the appeal. 10. the learned counsel for the 6th respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2011 (3) mlj 127 [kuppuswamy vs. commissioner, h.r. and c.e. admn. department, chennai and another] and submitted that burden is on the hindu religious and charitable endowment department to prove that the temple is a public temple ..... (a) department, madras - 34 vs. sri bhagavandhar and sri dhayanandhar matalayam] (iii) 1997 (1) lw 681 : 1996 (2) lw 681 [t.s.palanisamy and 7 others vs. the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowment board and another] (iv) 2006 (1) lw 459 [c.nallasivan pillai vs. the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowments administration department, madras and others] (v) 1975 (2) mlj 310 [thanuma iayaperumal mudaliar and ..... 5 c.p.c., issues 3 and 6 were deleted. (vi) before the trial court, the 6th respondent, the then trustee ramaraj was examined as pw1 and marked 10 documents as exs.a1 to a10. on behalf of the appellant and the respondents 1 to 5, one natarajan was examined as dw1 and the 5th respondent examined himself as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2016 (HC)

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administr ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... o.s.no.437 of 1995 for a declaration that sri hanumar thirukovil, aduthurai, belonged to a religious denomination, padmasaliya community, aduthurai, that the temple is a denominational institution protected under article 26 of the constitution of india and section 107 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 and that the temple is entitled to be managed and administered only by the said padmasaliya ..... , h.r. and c.e.(admin) department, tirunelveli v. swaminatha iyer and others reported in 1998-ii-mlj 344. (ii) in appusamy v. a.v.sundararajan and others reported in 1997-i-mlj 218. 13. the judgment of the appellate court in the present case indicates that the position which was taken note of by this court about 25 years back ..... (prayer: second appeal filed under section 100 of civil procedure code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009 of the additional sub court, kumbakonam, in a.s.no.193 of 2005, reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 17.01.2002 made in o.s.no. ..... , and the assistant commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments department, kumbakonam, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, have filed the present appeal as against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in a.s.no.193 of 2005. 10. at the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this court .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //