Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep.by Ministry of Home Affairs, (FCRA Wing), I Floor, Mayor Dyan Chand National Stadium, Near Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trust's registration application originally submitted under fcra. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the legality of fcra application rejection. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's discussion on natural justice and void due to vagueness. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. evaluation of statutory interpretation and compounding violations. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. final determination on the validity of rejection and procedural discrepancies. (Para 14 , 19) |
ORDER :
The petitioner is a trust established on 08.06.2017. The founders are the disciples of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukalam, Coimbatore. The petitioner is engaged in teaching and training students from around the world, for spreading knowledge of Vedanta along with Sanskrit language, teaching Hatha Yoga and yoga philosophy and also digitizing and preserving ancient manuscripts.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
“Clarification- Ref
Compounding a violation under the FCRA Act rectifies the applicant's status, and vague basis for rejection violates principles of natural justice.
An appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is maintainable against the rejection of a renewal application, emphasizing the necessity for clear reasoning in rejection orders.
Point of law : By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing / Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initia....
Point of law: By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing/Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initiated....
The requirement for a personal hearing before the cancellation of registration under the FCRA is essential when the consequences are severe, as outlined in Section 14(2) of the Act.
The court upheld the suspension of the FCRA registration under Section 13, ruling that no prior inquiry or hearing is required, affirming the necessity of statutory compliance over natural justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
