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

May 30, 2008 10:22 PM

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

June 2, 2008 6:25 PM

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

June 2, 2008 7:27 PM