SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(AP) 185

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Shashikala – Appellant
Versus
Babita Sharma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. A. Narasimha Rao.
For the Respondent: Sri. Kishore Rai.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, are petitioners in I.A. No. 396 of 2017 in the pending O.A. No. 603 of 2012 before the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad and they were respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the main OA supra. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the main OA are the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-III, Hyderabad and Sri Bhagya Laxmi Temple, Charminar, Hyderabad. The OA petitioner Smt. Babita Sharma, daughter of late Mahant Ram Chandra Das is the 1st respondent to the I.A. No. 396 of 2017 before the Tribunal vis-a-vis to the revision petition herein. The revision is maintained against the order of the Tribunal in I.A. No. 396 of 2017 supra dated 30.08.2017, dismissing the application of the revision petitioners/OA respondents 4 to 8 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the O.A. No. 603 of 2012 supra.

1(a). O.A. No. 603 of 2012 filed by said Smt. Babita Sharma against above referred eight respondents including the revision petitioners as referred supra is under Section 87(1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short th





























































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

P. Ashok Gajapathi Raju VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 504: SMT.BABITA SHARMA AND OTHERS, (2018) 4 ALT 161 - Cited in conjunction with RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS, (2020) 9 SCC 1, and reliance placed by counsel on Kum.SHASHIKALA, indicating positive reference or citation in argument.

T. N. Pradeep Kumar VS N. Narasimha Murthy - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 199: Babita Sharma and three others, 2018 (4) ALT 161 - Explicitly cited with "this Court observed as under :34(a)", suggesting the holding is being quoted or followed/approved in the subsequent decision.

Shyam Kishori Devi VS Patna Municipal Corporation - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 40: The Committee under S. 117 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality... - Presents a clear statutory interpretation/holding with no indicated negative treatment.

M. Pentiah VS Muddala Veeramallappa - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 270: The term of office of the members of the Committee deemed to have been constituted under S. 320 of the Act is three years... - States a definitive holding on statutory term limits, no treatment indicators.

Pannalal Bansilal Pitti VS State Of A. P. - 1996 1 Supreme 545: Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions... are constitutionally valid... - Declares constitutional validity with a rider, presented as binding holding, no negative treatment.

Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India VS Price Waterhouse - 1997 7 Supreme 647: Under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949... the Council has the power... - Affirms statutory power, no treatment indicators.

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur VS Swaraj Developers - 2003 3 Supreme 729: Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115... - States a rule on revisional jurisdiction post-amendment, no negative treatment.

Arnit Das VS State Of Bihar - 2000 4 Supreme 186: It is the date on which the person is brought before the competent authority... that is relevant... A decision not expressed... is the rule of sub-silentio... - Articulates two legal principles (juvenile determination and sub-silentio rule), presented as authoritative, no negative treatment.

Dental Council Of India VS Hari Prakash - 2001 6 Supreme 556: VERY AIIMS is not a University... within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the Dentist Act, 1948... - Provides interpretive holding on institutional status under statutes, no treatment indicators.

Saleem Bhai VS State Of Maharashtra - 2003 1 Supreme 433: VERY The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 1908 ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint... - Reiterates standard procedural rule, no negative treatment.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top