Supreme Court stays verdict on Ayodhya title suit
Calling it a strange and surprising order, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmbhoomi disputed site by which it had directed the site be divided equally between the three contending parties.
Assailing the judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, the apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha on Monday said that by directing the partition of the disputed site, the high court has given an entirely new dimension to the case.
"It is a rare judgement whose operation has to be stayed," the court said. "It was a strange and surprising order that was not prayed for by any of the parties and cannot be allowed to remain," it said.
While admitting the appeals by all the parties, the court said that "status quo as a disputed site will remain as directed by the constitution bench of the apex court by its verdict of Jan 7 1993 and that of March 13-14, 2002".
While ordering the stay, the apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha said that at least on the issue of the staying the operation of the high court verdict, there is a unanimity.
The apex court had allowed worship at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya and restrained all the parties from carrying out any religious activities on the 67.703 acres of land that was acquired by the central government around the disputed site.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Sep 30, 2010, ruled that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was built on a site after demolishing a temple on it way back in 1528, and that the spot where a makeshift temple to Ram Lulla was built after razing the mosque in 1992 was indeed where Hindu god Ram was born.
The Lucknow bench ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts, one for Hindus, another for Muslims and the third for Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case (PTI)
Category : General | Comments : 0 | Hits : 379
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments