Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity

Image
Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from  Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken decisive action in a sweeping initiative aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by removing 107 fake advocates  from the Roll of Advocates in Delhi  between 2019 and October 2024. This step comes as part of the BCI's rigorous verification process to ensure that only qualified, genuinely practising advocates remain in the profession, ultimately upholding public trust in the legal system. Strengthened Verification Framework Under Rule 32 This effort falls under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 . The BCI  amended Rule 32 on June 23, 2023 , which empowered the BCI to verify, identify, and systematically remove unqualified and fake advocates from the Roll. The rule amendment has made the process of weeding out non-compliant individuals significantly more efficient. Accordi
Post a Comment

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in the Dispute Over Trust Property of Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in the Dispute Over Trust Property of Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple

On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal in Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024, involving the dispute over the ownership and title of a trust property related to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple. The appeal, filed by Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple, challenged the judgment passed by the Madras High Court on October 26, 2017, which had upheld the decision that the disputed property was trust property and not under the absolute ownership of the appellant.


Background of the Case


The case revolves around the ownership of an immovable property adjacent to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple (referred to as the "suit property"). This property, along with the temple, was originally owned by Rai Raja Eswardoss Diawanth Bahadur, whose son and grandson, T. Lakshmidoss and T. Venkataprasad, were declared insolvents by the Madras High Court in 1914. As part of the insolvency proceedings, the properties, including the suit property, were placed under the control of the Official Assignee.


In 1917, Mr. W. Ramakrishna Lala purchased the suit property and established a trust to manage it. The trust deed allowed the income generated from the property to be used for the benefit of the insolvent family and the maintenance of the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple and the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple. However, after multiple insolvency declarations and subsequent legal proceedings, the property’s title and ownership became a matter of dispute between the appellant and the respondent.


Madras High Court Ruling


The Madras High Court, in its 2017 judgment, ruled in favor of the respondent, the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple, declaring the suit property as trust property. The High Court held that the appellant, who initially sought hereditary trusteeship, could not claim absolute ownership over the suit property. The court pointed out that the compromise decree of 1929, which established the trust, required the income from the property to be used for the maintenance of the temples. The appellant had allegedly misused the property’s income for personal gain, forfeiting their position as trustee.


Supreme Court's Judgment


In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the property was their private property and that no trust deed was executed to designate it as trust property. The appellant claimed that the Conveyance Deed of 1931 identified them as the absolute owner of the property, not merely as a trustee. They further contended that the suit filed by the respondent did not comply with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which pertains to suits related to trusts.


The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and reviewing the documents, upheld the decision of the Madras High Court. The Court ruled that the suit property is part of the trust and the appellant holds it in trustee capacity, not as the absolute owner. The court observed that the property had been explicitly vested in the trust for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples. The compromise decree of 1929 and the Conveyance Deed of 1931 clearly indicated that the property was meant for the benefit of the temples, and the appellant’s failure to properly manage the property’s income led to the forfeiture of their position as trustee.


Key Points from the Judgment:

1. The compromise decree of 1929 explicitly vests the suit property in the trust for the maintenance of the temples.

2. The appellant was merely a trustee of the property, not the absolute owner.

3. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the proceedings were barred by res judicata, as the earlier litigation dealt with a separate issue—the public or private status of the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple.

4. The Supreme Court found that the appellant’s claim of absolute ownership was unsupported by the evidence, and the terms of the trust deed were upheld.


Conclusion


The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the Madras High Court’s ruling that the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple is a public trust and the suit property continues to be part of that trust. This decision reinforces the legal obligations of trustees to manage trust properties in accordance with the terms of the trust and for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Image
 Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18 INTRODUCTION The idea of equality referenced under Article 14 to Article 18 upgrades a more extensive idea and a more extensive part of the examination as the subject of equity itself shapes a vital and powerful idea in itself. The idea of fairness overwhelms the exceptionally two significant ideas of equivalent security of law and equity under the steady gaze of the law. Likewise, the idea of uniformity wins in a wide range of establishments and accommodates equivalent freedoms for people with the abrogation of unapproachable and nullification of titles. The idea is a more extensive methodology as it is significant for society to look to each individual with a similar methodology regardless of his sexual orientation, rank, and religion. The law is visually impaired and is equivalent for each individual as it says that balance wins for each individual and each individual has the option to be secured by the law. Evolution  The fundamenta
Read more

Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren

Image
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren Cognizance Taken by PMLA Court A Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi has taken cognizance of a prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against Hemant Soren, the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand and leader of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). The complaint, comprising 5,500 pages, pertains to a money laundering case related to a land 'scam'. The central probe agency has also attached 8.5 acres of land in connection with the case. Detention and Extended Custody Hemant Soren, who was arrested on January 31, is currently detained at the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi. His judicial custody was extended till April 4 by the PMLA court on March 21. Additionally, on February 29, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition filed by Soren seeking permission to attend the budget session of the state assembly. Allegations by the Enforcement Directorat
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth." In article 14 there two  approaches which include negative
Read more