Twitter | Search | |
This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on 15 December 2020. Please switch to a supported browser or device. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Naphade argues Mahant is legal representative of Math and Hindus. "Once he says he is Mahant of place of worship, he is legal representative of Math and automatically becomes representatives of Hindu worshippers" Justice Bobde disputes the submission.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Law is law. Mahant represents the Math, Naphade.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
: Parties to 1885 suit were representing same persons as in present suits. Title to property claimed by Hindus in 1885 suit same as in present suit. Cause of action was right to construct temple in both cases. Hence constructive res judicata applies, Nahpade.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Shekhar Naphade concludes, Adv Nizam Pasha commences arguments.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Nirmohi means without 'Moh'. Hence, it means without material attachment, submits Nizam Pasha questioning the litigation fought by Nirmohi Akhara contrary to its theological foundation.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 29 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : When Babur performed these actions, he was the sovereign. It was time when Constitution was not in existence. The law was what the sovereign declared to be law. Testing his actions against Quranic law incorrect to assess legality of his actions, Pasha.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Quran was not the law recognised by this sovereign at all. It can be used to test his actions to determine whether he was a sinner or not but not legality of his actions, Nizam Pasha.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : We cannot start by presumption that law of Sharia governs his actions, Pasha. The legal validity of title is determined by law of land. Once title is proved then, the governance of wakf will be based on wakf law.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Bench rises for lunch.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : What Babur did is far from Haram, it might be Makruh at the most. It does not affect the character of mosque, Nizam Pasha.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : The idea of mosque in Islam is also as a cultural place where people gather, Nizam Pasha.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Nizam Pasha concludes his submissions. Sr adv. K Parasaran commences rejoinder arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Juristic personality has to be seen from the point of view of Hindu law. Unnecessary to turn to Roman law or English law, K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Hindu law has grown and evolved from instance to instance by way of judicial interpretation, K Parasaran quoting Justice Vivian Bose in Anwar Ali Sarkar case.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : K Parasaran making submissions on the nature of Hindu religion.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : In the Hindu religion, though the ultimate God is one Supreme being, he is worshipped in different forms in different modes in different temples, K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Rajeev Dhavan objects to Parasaran's submissions citing examples, case laws. "My friend is here on reply to our reply. But his examples are out of context. We could also cite examples but Your Lordships specifically stopped us"
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : "Now I will have to reply to him. These were not part of evidence", Dhavan. Parasaran responds to Dhavan; Says Dhavan gave an article to Bench which was not part of evidence. "Give it back My Lord. Dont take it as part of record", Dhavan retorts.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Why are you insisting on divinity as a condition to attribute juristic personality to land/ object? Justice SA Bobde to K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Something to which divinity is attributed means it can take the place of the Divine/ God. It is a form which helps to think about God especially for a layperson, K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Parasaran quoting Upanishads to argue that while God is shapeless and formless, it is difficult for ordinary worshippers to perceive God in the absence of a form or idol.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : For ordinary worshippers, in order to be able to conceive of the idea of ‘God’ and concentrate on the deity while offering worship, an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Attributing juristic personality is for the protection of idol, Sr Adv. K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Where an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, it represents the physical manifestation of the deity sought to be worshipped, Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- :Such an idol or image comes to be recognized as the juristic entity, capable of holding property endowed to deity. However, the object of worship is not the idol itself, but God/ deity/ divinity which is believed to manifest in such idol, K Parasaran
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : K Parasaran citing precedents explaining the basis of idol worship.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : The notion of treating an idol as a juristic person is rooted in the faith of the people that the God/deity/ divinity has manifested itself in such an idol and is thus capable of holding movable and immoveable property dedicated to it, K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : While God / Deity Himself is not a person in law, whatever form He is believed to have manifested Himself in becomes a person in law, submits K Parasaran.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : Justice Bobde asks K Parasaran whether any precedent exists in which the whole temple including the land has been held to be juristic person and not just idol.
Reply Retweet Like
Bar & Bench 30 Sep 19
Replying to @barandbench
- : In response to question by Justice SA Bobde, Parasaran places reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy v. Commr
Reply Retweet Like