AJAY MASIH . vs JULIOUS PRASAD AND ORS.ETC. — C.A. No. 5264 - 5265/2010

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010256182009

Filing Date

27-Aug-2009

Registration No

C.A. No. 5264 - 5265/2010

Diary Number

25618/2009

Order Date

24-Sep-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY MASIH .

    Adv. R. C. KOHLI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JULIOUS PRASAD AND ORS.ETC.

    Adv. AP & J CHAMBERS HARSH PARASHAR[R-2] HARSH PARASHAR[R-2] CHARU AMBWANI[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Sep-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 24-Sep-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari

  4. 18-Sep-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 16-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 07-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 07-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 07-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 07-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 19-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 19-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 07-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 18-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 27-Aug-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5264 - 5265/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ajay Masih v. Julious Prasad (C.A. 5264-5265/2010) The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeals without interference, upholding the High Court's June 2008 order that set aside the Registrar's February 2007 decision to register "Disciple of the Christ Church, Damoh" as a public trust. The Court found the Registrar acted contrary to law by reviewing and reversing his own March 2005 rejection order, which had been upheld after the appellants failed to comply with statutory requirements. The Court directed the Registrar to proceed in accordance with law and the December 2006 High Court directions, rejecting appellants' contention that respondents should have filed a civil suit instead of a writ petition. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case