H.A. MARTIN & OTHERS versus MOSES THAMBI PILLAI & OTHERS

H.A. MARTIN & OTHERS versus MOSES THAMBI PILLAI & OTHERS

TELC is not a society governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 because Section 4(3) expressly excludes societies with the object of promoting religion from application of the Act, and Section 53 must be read consistently with this scheme. Thus, the Act is not applicable to TELC at all.

Parties
Appellant: H.A. Martin; Appellant: Treasurer, TELC (Name not specified); Appellant: Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC); Respondent: Moses Thambi Pillai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 481/2007
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Societies Registration, Exemption of Religious Societies, Section 53 Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.A. Martin

Appellant

Treasurer, TELC (Name not specified)

Appellant

Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC)

Appellant

Moses Thambi Pillai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 481/2007

  1. 1 Whether Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) is to be treated as a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 in view of Section 53 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

TELC is not a society governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 because Section 4(3) expressly excludes societies with the object of promoting religion from application of the Act, and Section 53 must be read consistently with this scheme. Thus, the Act is not applicable to TELC at all.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment under appeal is set aside.
  • The second respondent, if he has any legally tenable grievance de hors the 1975 Act, is free to pursue such remedy available to him under the law.