Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court dismisses appeal alleging misfeasance in temple trust funds, upholds trustees' honesty and denies removal.</h1> <h3>Rao Bahadur S.A.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Versus M.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and Ors.</h3> The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove allegations of misfeasance and malfeasance by the respondents regarding temple properties and ... - Issues Involved:1. Appellant's standing as a 'person having interest' in the temple.2. Alleged misfeasance and malfeasance by respondents.3. Extent of temple properties and accountability of respondents.4. Removal of respondents from trusteeship.5. Validity of trust funds and respondents' liability to account.6. Power of the court to settle a scheme for temple management.Detailed Analysis:1. Appellant's Standing as a 'Person Having Interest':At a previous hearing, the court held that the appellant qualified as a 'person having interest' under Section 9, Sub-section 9, of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, thereby entitling him to sue.2. Alleged Misfeasance and Malfeasance by Respondents:The appellant alleged various acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and misappropriation of trust moneys by the respondents. The lower court found that the appellant failed to prove these allegations, and the High Court agreed, noting that most charges were unfounded and appeared to be due to a misapprehension of the entries in the accounts.3. Extent of Temple Properties and Accountability of Respondents:The respondents admitted that the temple owned lands in Elanangur, Vayalamur, and Nandimangalam villages, and houses in Chidambaram town. The court found that the respondents did not claim any beneficial interest in certain properties but represented them as belonging to a distinct charity, the 'Elamaiyakkinar Koil Patasala.' The court accepted this representation and found no evidence to the contrary.4. Removal of Respondents from Trusteeship:The court considered the claim for removal of the respondents from trusteeship. Despite some irregularities, no serious charge involving dishonest or fraudulent conduct was proven. The court found that the respondents had dealt with the temple honestly and fairly, and their conduct did not justify removal from office.5. Validity of Trust Funds and Respondents' Liability to Account:The main contention revolved around whether certain credit entries in the respondents' business accounts constituted valid gifts or trusts. The court concluded that these entries were mere book entries without actual allocation of funds, and therefore, no valid gifts or trusts were created. The respondents were not held accountable for these sums.6. Power of the Court to Settle a Scheme for Temple Management:The court held that it had no power to settle a scheme for the management of the temple in a suit brought under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Act vests the power of settling schemes initially in the Board constituted under Section 10, and the court's jurisdiction is limited to modifying or canceling schemes settled by the Board or the court itself under the Act.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the respondents directed to invest a specific capital fund in proper securities as per the Board's directions. The appellant's costs in both courts were to come out of the trust estate, and the respondents were to bear their own costs. A copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for further action.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found