TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bihar Hindu Trusts Act upheld for Baidyanath temple properties</h1> <h3>The State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Bhabapritananda Ojha The State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Bhabapritananda Ojha The State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Bhabapritananda Ojha The State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Bhabapritananda Ojha</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, applies to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950.2. Extra-territorial operation of the Act.3. Conflict of jurisdiction between courts in Bihar and those outside Bihar.4. Validity of the Act under the Indian Constitution.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction and Applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950:The appeal concerns the applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, to the Baidyanath temple in Deoghar, Bihar. The respondent argued that the temple and its properties were administered under a scheme approved by the Calcutta High Court, outside Bihar's jurisdiction. The High Court of Patna concluded that the Act did not apply to the temple, as it was administered under a scheme by a court outside Bihar.Extra-territorial Operation of the Act:The respondent contended that the Act was ultra vires the Bihar Legislature as it purported to operate on properties outside Bihar. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act applies to religious trusts situated in Bihar with properties in Bihar, even if some properties are outside the state. The Court emphasized that the Bihar Legislature has the competence to legislate on religious trusts within its territory, and the Act does not suffer from the vice of extra-territoriality.Conflict of Jurisdiction Between Courts in Bihar and Those Outside Bihar:The High Court of Patna had relied on the doctrine of comity of jurisdictions to exclude the Baidyanath temple from the Act's purview. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that there is no conflict of jurisdiction as the Act validly takes religious trusts in Bihar out of the purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that the Act does not interfere with the jurisdiction of courts outside Bihar but rather removes the applicability of Section 92 to trusts in Bihar.Validity of the Act Under the Indian Constitution:The Supreme Court addressed the broader constitutional challenges to the Act, including alleged violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 27, and the imposition of unauthorized taxes. The Court upheld the Act's validity, stating that it did not infringe on fundamental rights or impose unauthorized taxes. The Act was deemed intra vires and constitutionally valid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order. The Court held that the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, applies to the Baidyanath temple and its properties, and does not suffer from extra-territorial operation. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the Act was upheld as valid and binding.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
