All

Certificate of incorporation of ISKCON – 13/07/1966

Tagged: 1966 CE, Corporation, ISKCON

This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by advtanmoy.

Viewing 0 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 12/07/2022 at 00:02 #119809
  
  advtanmoy
  Keymaster
  
  The matters set forth in paragraphs FIRST through EIGHTH of this certificate were determined at a meeting held for that purpose pursuant to Section 192 of the Religious Corporation Law on July 6, 1966 at No. 26 Second Avenue in the City, County and State of New York. Said meeting was held pursuant to due written notice as provided in Section 191 of the Religious Corporation Law.
  
  [See the full post at: Certificate of incorporation of ISKCON – 13/07/1966]
Author

Posts

Viewing 0 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Judgments

Rahimal Bathu & Ors. Vs Ashiyal Beevi (27/9/2023)

Phulel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (27/09/2023)

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab (23/09/2014)

Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (06/09/2023)

Riya Bawri Etc. Vs. Mark Alexander Davidson & Ors (23/08/2023)

A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]