If this was true Maharishi would never have stayed with him or we would never find out.
----- Original Message ----
From: sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:51:05 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] I am an idiot
From: sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:51:05 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] I am an idiot
Here I am, assuing that ColdBlueIce is able to read, and I accepted without question, his
claim that the High Court had found that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati wasn't a good
enough Sanskrit Scholar to be Shankaracharya. What the High Court did was to dismiss
the lawsuit. No ruling whatsoever was made about anyone's competency or anything else.
Any reference to S. Shatananda's compentency was in the context of what claims the
plaintiffs made, NOT what the High Court or the Supreme Court decided. The only thing
both courts DECIDED was to dismiss the lawsuit as being improper under the law that was
used to justify the lawsuit in the first place:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html
[...]
The trial Court, after reading the allegations in the plaint and after looking into the entire
evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the suit was primarily one for declaration
[1] that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June
25, 1953 and
[2] that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as the Head of the Math by
Brahmanand as he did not possess the requisite qualification and
[3] that his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity, of a trustee de son
tort,
and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math.
The High Court saw no reason to differ from that finding
[...]
We think that the High Court was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that it did not
fall within S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but, in the
circumstances, without any order .is to costs. V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
claim that the High Court had found that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati wasn't a good
enough Sanskrit Scholar to be Shankaracharya. What the High Court did was to dismiss
the lawsuit. No ruling whatsoever was made about anyone's competency or anything else.
Any reference to S. Shatananda's compentency was in the context of what claims the
plaintiffs made, NOT what the High Court or the Supreme Court decided. The only thing
both courts DECIDED was to dismiss the lawsuit as being improper under the law that was
used to justify the lawsuit in the first place:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html
[...]
The trial Court, after reading the allegations in the plaint and after looking into the entire
evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the suit was primarily one for declaration
[1] that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June
25, 1953 and
[2] that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as the Head of the Math by
Brahmanand as he did not possess the requisite qualification and
[3] that his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity, of a trustee de son
tort,
and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math.
The High Court saw no reason to differ from that finding
[...]
We think that the High Court was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that it did not
fall within S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but, in the
circumstances, without any order .is to costs. V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
