Monday, June 02, 2008

Navneet Clairifies the Supreme Court Judgement

This is from Navneet on the Tell Me Truth India Site (comments #303-4-5)
This is Navneet's reply to a question by Cyril Borg and other comments on this site.

(The "highlights" in Navneet's reply are by 4d-don)

Cyril Said:

Navneet...

Could you tell us what case this clause refers to? Is there a number or a link that would allow us to look at it and make it available to our readers?

Is there any other news or other events you can share with the PEOPLE? (number and links of current cases, newspaper articles, etc...)

Thank you for sharing the info with ALL...

May the ONE shower you with blessings...

Cyril Borg

From the JUDGEMENT of CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6619 of 2000
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363


6. It is not necessary to deal with the true import of
Sections 3(A) and 4. It would be appropriate to direct that the
pending suit shall be decided within a period of six months.


Cyril Borg



Navneet said...

Dear Cyril

This refers to a suit already filed in Shahjahanpur lower court way back in the year 2000 regarding the question as to who is the president and the contesting that the document put forth by PR Chari is false.

Judges of Supreme Court while listening to our case on 6th and 7th Feb looked into the document and the copy of constitution submitted by PR Chari and stated that there is forgery and falsification in the documents submitted by PR Chari.

The constitution & Bye laws submitted by Chari group was proved by us to be false and not registered by the Registrar. By getting the sealed copy from the registrar which stated that the document is not registered by the registrar. the same was presented to court in original to prove falsification and misguiding of court.

Hence the judges during the discussions suggested that there should be trial of criminal nature also seeing the same. The appeal being Civil could not take the criminal offence. hence he suggested then itself to take up in the suit pending at lower court.

Navneet


Navnet said...

Dear Cyril and others

The case in the lower court was filed by Sh. K.V. Reddy ji who was the Overseas Secretary during Babuji's physical presence and the number of case is 340 of 2003. at Shahjahanpur lower court. Wherein the same questions were asked as that in the present Supreme court case.

As explained earlier there is criminal offence also hence the case at Shahjahanpur court has been as to be executed as it is a suit.

Moreover latest news is that Chari, His secretary US Bajpai, Kishan Tandon, Vaibhav Tandon and two retired IAS officers involved in the incident of physically assaulting my mother , my uncle and others at the ashram have been "chargesheeted" (proved to be criminal after investigation) by a Special Investigating agency after probe being ordered by the Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, India and by the lower court of Shahjahanpur about the incident which. Court has accepted the same and summons have been issued to them acordingly.

The incident is the same that was covered by newspapers on the 3rd April, 2006 of which you are asking the link.

I had got a scanned copy published on our website and did not know of the link. It was published in Hindustan the hindi daily of the Hindustan Times Group. It was published on 6th April 2006.

One more thing I need to clarify to the Anonymous blogger. the suit pointed out by him i.e. Suit No. 7359 of 1989 is K. Sivaramaiah v. Rukmani Ammal [2004(1) SCC
471] in the court of the same judge and not our suit. Kindly re-read the judgement carefully again.

The judges have cited the suit to eliminate claims of Chari vide his so called interim judgemnet by the highcourt that he is the president. The original case no. was 200 of 83.

Also cited in judgemen "....in view of the interim orders in civil suit OS (No.) 200
of 1983 the respondent No. 1 P. Rajagopalachari shall
continue to work as President. As noted above the suit was
withdrawn on 10.7.1997 with liberty to file fresh suit."

So the above order is cited to show that the effect of the judgement does not stand.

Would request to speak only after complete clarity of the judgement or reading the judgement several times before giving your views on same.

Hope the lawyers will agree that whenever judgements are passed by the Apex court if there is a rebuttence then it is pointed out by the court or a view is given by the court on the same. If there is no rebutence of a claim either by the reponsent or the petitioner the same is taken as accepted by the orther party and by the court.

In this order all the the word judgement is written in the beginning. Moreover there has been rebuttence shown by us only in the order at one place that is Claim of Chari under 3a of the contitution. wherein we have revbutted stating that the contitution says that the "..president of the said society can only be in Direct line of Succession." and we have opposed Chari's claim of being in Direct line of succession as he is not the geneological son of Babuji maharaj. This is what the judge has asked to test by the lower court.

As far as my age is concerned I was an adolescent wjen my grandfather was alive.

I hope you would agree that an adolescent has enough gre cells to remember and contrue things. Atleast it is so in India. thanks to our Education system. You would also agree that Babuji had written that when he was 9 years old he prayed to Lord Hanuman ji. HE WAS 9 at That TIME. Must have read his Autobiography.

As far as proof of Babuji writing president is going to be his lineal decendant is concerned. You should have read the registered constitution of the society Shri Ram Chandra Mission not the one which was printed and circulated by Chari (similar to the falsfied document submitted in the Supreme court by him.). Moreover we have the original literature of Babuji written by his own hands presented to courts too. and the last letter of Babuji maharaj also stating the same again. this too was presented to Alllahabad High Court.

Left for you to decide

Navneet


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

N. K. Saxena: “....regarding the question as to who is the President .....................
Judges of Supreme Court while listening to our case on 6th and 7th Feb looked into the document and the copy of constitution submitted by PR Chari and stated that there is forgery and falsification in the documents submitted by PR Chart ...”
----- Where in the document/s is/are (a) falsifications?
----- What is written in the records of the Supreme Court about your charge of falsification (quotation needed)?

N. K. Saxena: ”...Hence the judges during the discussions suggested that there should be trial of criminal nature also seeing the same. The appeal being Civil could not take the criminal offence. hence he suggested then itself to take up in the suit pending at lower court.
----- Does this mean that the still pending case isn’t in a (lower) civil court, but in a criminal court?
----- What is written in the records of this lower (criminal) court about your charge? (quotation needed)

N. K. Saxena: ”...Moreover latest news is that Chari, His secretary US Bajpai, Kishan Tandon, Vaibhav Tandon and two retired IAS officers involved in the incident of physically assaulting my mother , ....”
----- The writer could make the impression that his mother was assaulted by all of these persons who are mentioned above. Is it true that it was like this?

N. K. Saxena: “....One more thing I need to clarify to the Anonymous blogger. the suit pointed out by him i.e. Suit No. 7359 of 1989 is K. Sivaramaiah v. Rukmani Ammal [2004(1) SCC
471] in the court of the same judge and not our suit. Kindly re-read the judgement carefully again.
The judges have cited the suit to eliminate claims of Chari vide his so called interim judgemnet by the highcourt that he is the president. The original case no. was 200 of 83....”
----- Quotation from CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6619 of 2000 PETITIONER: Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Anr ..... DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2008
“5. [of the judgment] It is pointed out that the earlier suit having direct effect was withdrawn and the effect of it has to be considered. The effect of the withdrawal of a suit has been considered by this Court in K. Sivaramaiah v. Rukmani Ammal [2004(1) SCC 471]. It was inter alia observed as follows:
‘So far as Original Suit No. 7359 of 1989 is concerned, the findings recorded in the
judgment therein could have constituted res judicata but the fact remains that the
appellate court permitted the withdrawal of the suit and once the suit has been permitted to be withdrawn all the proceedings taken therein including the judgment passed by the trial court have been wiped out....”
[From: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363]
----- Does it mean that Chariji withdrew a suit in the past?

N. K. Saxena: “....As far as my age is concerned I was an adolescent wjen my grandfather was alive....”
----- What was the age (years) of Navneet Kumar Saxena, when his grandfather expired?
Isn’ it astonishing that he compares his own abilities with the abilities of a “special personality”?

N. K. Saxena: “...As far as proof of Babuji writing president is going to be his lineal decendant is concerned. You should have read the registered constitution of the society Shri Ram Chandra Mission not the one which was printed and circulated by Chari (similar to the falsfied document submitted in the Supreme court by him.)....”
----- Quotation from K.C.Narayana: “....I do not know whether I can explain things but I can tell you certain facts.
1. Brother Parthasarathy was nominated as President of SRCM in March 1974. The words Spiritual Representative IS NOT there in the original document. This document was NOT attested by witnesses.
2. I being one of the members of the Working Committee nominated by Rev.Babuji Maharaj was the first to say the document need not be doubted as another document produced by one of the sons of our Master was a fake/bogus one......”
[Interview with KC Narayana (son of K.C. Varadachari), abhyasi since 1955, preceptor since 1967, director of the SMRI since 1984)
(From: http://srcminterviewstestimonials.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-kc-narayana.html]
------ Sister Kasturi told in a meeting at a time when she already had left SRCM (this means at a time when she was no more in agreement with Chariji) that Chariji was nominated as President of SRCM by Babuji and not meant to be the spiritual representative of Babuji. During this meeting she further explained that she could not accept the fact that Chariji (in her opinion in a cowardly way) didn’t take over the Shahjahanpur Ashram when he became President of SRCM.
----- It is said that there are members of Babuji’s family in SRCM Manapakkam.

N. K. Saxena: “....Moreover we have the original literature of Babuji written by his own hands presented to courts too. and the last letter of Babuji maharaj also stating the same again. this too was presented to Alllahabad High Court. Left for you to decide.”
----- Babuji wrote his last letter by his own hands?

It is the reader’s decision to think about Navneet Kumar Saxenar’s way of argumentation.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous...

Navneet does not reply to requests left on my blog...

If you want a reply, please direct your comments to a site where he replies regularly: Tell me the Truth India...in the comments section only...there are now 388 comments divided in two sections (1-200...and 201 to 388)

Thanks for your comment...

4d-don...