Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court

20 January 2025 2:03 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


"Temple surplus funds must be used strictly for religious and charitable purposes as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act. Constructing a shopping complex does not fall within this scope," the Madras High Court.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy quashed the decision to use temple surplus funds for the construction of a shopping complex at the Arulmighu Nandheeswarar Shivan Temple in Chengalpattu. The Court clarified that such surplus funds must only be utilized for the purposes outlined in Sections 36, 36-A, and 36-B of the HR & CE Act, 1959.

"Temple Surplus Funds Must Align with Religious and Charitable Purposes"
The Court held that the proposal by the HR & CE Department to use temple surplus funds for constructing a shopping complex was outside the legal scope of Section 36 of the HR & CE Act.

"The purpose of surplus funds is for the propagation of religious tenets, Hindu religious education, or other charitable activities such as feeding the poor and supporting Hindu marriages among the needy. Constructing a shopping complex for commercial purposes does not serve these objectives," the Court emphasized [Paras 10-14].

The Court also rejected the Department's argument that such projects would generate additional revenue for temple maintenance. It observed that there was no feasibility study to justify the economic benefits of the shopping complex compared to alternative uses of surplus funds, such as fixed deposits.

As a portion of the shopping complex had already been constructed, the Court permitted its completion with strict restrictions on its use. The Court directed that the structure be repurposed for activities allowed under Sections 36-A and 36-B of the HR & CE Act:

Feeding the Poor: The building could be used as a center to provide food for the poor.
Hindu Marriages for the Needy: The building could also be used to conduct Hindu marriages for those in financial need.
However, the Court clarified that this ruling should not set a precedent for constructing marriage halls or similar facilities using temple surplus funds [Paras 23-27].

The Court took note of the absence of trustees for the Shivan Temple and criticized the lack of oversight in the decision-making process. The HR & CE Department had failed to prioritize religious or charitable uses of surplus funds, as mandated by law.

"Without trustees, the temple is being run as a de facto kingdom of the Joint Commissioner. The appointment of trustees must be expedited to ensure proper oversight," the Court stated [Paras 7-8].

The Court allowed the petitioner, a devotee and "person with interest" under Section 6(15)(b) of the HR & CE Act, to challenge the appointments if he was dissatisfied with the process.

The petitioner had also filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents violated an interim stay order issued by the Court on September 24, 2024, halting further construction of the shopping complex.

The respondents admitted to breaching the stay order and offered apologies along with assurances to halt construction immediately. The Court accepted the apologies and assurances, disposing of the contempt petition without imposing penalties [Paras 20-21].

In response to a query about alternative uses for surplus temple lands, the Court suggested environmentally beneficial projects.

"Given global environmental challenges like deforestation, the HR & CE Department could consider using surplus lands for planting native trees, thereby contributing to environmental improvement," the bench observed [Para 22].

Shopping Complex Quashed: The Court quashed the proposal to use temple surplus funds for constructing a shopping complex, deeming it non-compliant with the HR & CE Act.
Charitable Repurposing Allowed: The partially constructed building can only be used for feeding the poor or conducting Hindu marriages for the needy.
Appointment of Trustees: Directed the HR & CE Department to expedite the appointment of trustees for the temple.
Contempt Disposed: Accepted apologies for the breach of the interim stay order and disposed of the contempt petition.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2025
 

Latest Legal News