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

2014 Supreme(Guj) 60

R.D.KOTHARI
Mahant Janardandasji Guru Legal Representatives of Decd Vishwemberdasji Guru – Appellant
Versus
Administrator, Ambaji Mata Temple – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
FIRST APPEAL No. 216/1983
MR S P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant.
MS KETTY MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA,
ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1.
MR BHAVESH HAJARE, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 – 3.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2947/1999
MR S P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR BHAVESH HAJARE, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State
MS KETTY MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA,
ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 2.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13396/2008
MS KETTY MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR S P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for Respondent No.1
MR BHAVESH HAJARE, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2-5

JUDGMENT

R.D.KOTHARI

Parties have come up before this Court via three cases, viz;


(I) First Appeal No.216/1983 arises, as the appellant claims to be aggrieved by the order passed by the District Court, Palanpur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.12/1981;

(II) Special Civil Application No. 2947/1999 is filed by the then pujari/vahivatkarta of Koteshwar Temple against the order of Special Secretary, and

(III) Special Civil Application No. 13396/2008 is filed by the Administrator, Ambaji Mata Temple Trust against the order passed by the District Court, Palanpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.57/1991, wherein said Court was pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the plaintiff.

All these three cases were heard simultaneously. Issues involved in all the cases are same and identical, hence three cases are disposed of by this common judgment.

First, case of parties in First Appeal No.216/1983 may be considered.

I. FIRST APPEAL No. 216/1983:

1.1. Interesting question raised by the learned advocate for the appellant about propriety and validity of exercise of powers under section 70A by the Charity Commissioner while dismissing the appellant’s appeal as barred by limitation is raised in First Appeal No. 216


























































































































































































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