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

2006 Supreme(Kar) 684

C.R.KUMARASWAMY, R.GURURAJAN
SAHASRA LINGESHW ARA TEMPLE, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Sri A. Keshava Bhat, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos.:1440 and 3576 of 2005 and for Petitioners in W.P. No. 37:19 of2006;
Sri KN. Phanindra and Smt. Vaishali Hegde, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3419 of 2005 and for Petitioners in W.P. N0. 3027 of2006;
Sri D.L.N. Rao and Smt. S.R. Anuradha, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3460 of 2005;
Sri K Suman, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3467 of 2005;
Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3468, 3469, 3512, 3514 and 3548 of 2005;
Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3470, 3522 and 3582 of 2005; 20 of 2006 and for Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 833, 3040 and 3720 of 2006;
Sri KN. Phanindra, Advocate for Appellants in WA. No. 3479 of 2005;
Sri A. Ananda Shetty and Sri N. Rajashekar, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3484 and 3660 of 2005;
Sri Y. Rajendra prasad Shetty, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3485 and 3486 of 2005;
Sri O. Shivarama Bhat, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3487 and 3488 of 2005; Sri Krishnamurthy G. Hasyagar, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3500 of 2005;
M/s. G.S. Bhat and Associates, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 1507 and 3566 of 2005;
Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3526 of 2005; M/s. S.M. Krishna Bhat, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3532 of 2005; Sri K Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3538 of 2005; Sri C.H. Jadhav, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3541 of 2005;
Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3549 and 3559 of 2005;
Sri K.R. Sreenivasa Patavardhan, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3552 of 2005;
Sri Krishna S. Dixit and Sri Arun KS., Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3569 of 2005;
Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3573 of 2005;
M/s. Kumar and Kumar, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3575 of 2005;
Sri Ramesh P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3578 of 2005;
Sri S.S. Dodamani and SI; G.S. Kannur, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3593 of 2005;
Sri G.S. Kannur, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3594 and 3595 of 2005;
Sri RM Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3602 of 2005;
Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastri, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3608 of 2005;
Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit., Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3629 of 2005;
Sri K.M. Nataraj, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3641, 3694 and 3905 of 2005; 123, 247 of 2006 and for Petitioner in W. P. No. 3471 of 2006;
Sri Manjunath Meled, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3693, 3717 and 3905 of 2005 and for Petitioner in W P. No. 307 of 2006;
Sri M.V. Vedachala. Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3746 of 2005; Sri Kishore Shetty, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3772 of 2005;
Sri M.V. Riremath and Sri Shivananda D.S., Advocates for Appellant in W.A. No. 3805 of 2005;
M/s. Lex Nexus, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3822 of 2005;
Sri Krishna S. Dixit, Advocate for Appellants in W.A. No. 3511 of 2005;
Sri P.M. Jalisatgi and Sri Suresh Bhat, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3851 of 2005;
Sri Ravi Malimath and Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocates for Appellant in W.A. No. 3723 of 2005;
Sri R.N. Shashidhara for M/s. Kesvy and Company, Advocates for Appellant in W.A. No. 3768 of 2005;
Smt. Nalini Venkatesh for M/s. Kesvy and Company, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. Nos. 3610, 3611 and 3609 of 2005;
Sri G.K Bhat, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No. 991 of 2006;
Sri Amaresh A. Angadi, Advocate for Appellant in W.A. No. 3868 of 2005;
Sri Laxminarayan, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No. 4203 of 2006;
M/s. SPS Associates and Sri A.N. Regde, Advocates for Appellants in W.A. No. 3564 of 2005;
Sri Prasanna V.R., Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No. 8984 of 2006; Advocate General for Respondent-1 in W.A. No. 3440 of 2005;
Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents in W.A. Nos. 3419, 3460, 3467, 3468, 3500, 3522, 3538, 3573, 3578 and 3641 of 2005; Government Advocate for Respondents in W.A. Nos. 3469, 3470, 3479,3484,3485,3486,3487,3488, 3507,3512, 3514,3526,3532,3541,3548,3549,3552,3559,3566, 3575, 3576, 3582,359S, 3594,3595, 3602,3608,3660,3693,3694, 3717, 3746,3772,3805,3511,3851, 3905,3723, 3768,3610, 3611, 3609, 3868 and 3564 of 2005; 20, 123, 247 of 2006 and W.P. Nos. 307, 833, 991,3027, 3040, 3471, 4203, 3720, 3739 and 8984 of 2006 and Government Advocate for Respondents-l to 4 in W.A. No. 3629 of 2005;
Sri M.N. Sheshadri, Government Advocate for Respondents in W.A. No. 3569 of 2005;
Sri S.Z.A. Kureshi, Government Advocate and M/s. B.M. Krishna Bhat, Advocates for Impleading Respondents in W.A. No. 3822 of 2005.

JUDGMENT

Hindu temples/trustees of temples/archaks and others of Karnataka are before us aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 9-9-2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 31937 of 2003 (R.M. Sukumar Shetty, Managing Trustee, Sri Kollur Mookambika Temple, Kollur and Others v State by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Bangalore and Another!) and connected matters in these appeals.

2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on them has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to






























































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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