Topics | Search Log Out | Register | Edit Profile
Hide Clipart | Banned/Unbanned User Log | Moderator Login History | Thread Delete/Move Log | Last 30 mins | 1 | 2
Ayodhya Case

Chalanachithram.com DB » New TF Industry Related » Archive through September 28, 2018 » Ayodhya Case « Previous Next »
Author Message
 

Rajusk
Legend
Username: Rajusk

Post Number: 65536
Registered: 02-2008
Posted From: 170.74.231.20

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 09:27 am:       


Rajusk:

it is only a land dispute




aa okka sentence chaalu anukonta..Supreme court ki ..decision ivvadaniki

October 29th week..fingers crossed..
 

Andhrawala
Legend
Username: Andhrawala

Post Number: 71206
Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 152.51.48.1

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 09:15 am:       

This is a good beginning for Hindus and positive outcome towards building Ram Temple anukuntaa

Only worry occhi promotions lor eservations avasaram ledhu ani Supreme court seppindhi. Idhi SC/ST s ki against ani Mayavathi antunnaadhi

alaa repu 2019 lo eeme PM aithee No Temple antaademoo
No Signature
 

Rajusk
Legend
Username: Rajusk

Post Number: 65532
Registered: 02-2008
Posted From: 172.58.225.84

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 07:40 am:       

Three-judge Bench will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority
 

Rajusk
Legend
Username: Rajusk

Post Number: 65531
Registered: 02-2008
Posted From: 172.58.225.84

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 07:40 am:       

Ijaz Maqbool, lawyer for the Petitioner, says Muslim community always said it is only a land dispute and it has to be dealt with accordingly.

"Everyone has to accept the verdict. Majority judgement said the Observations made in 1994 are only in the Context of acquisition. Court made it clear these observations won't affect the title suit," he says
 

Rajusk
Legend
Username: Rajusk

Post Number: 65530
Registered: 02-2008
Posted From: 172.58.225.84

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 07:39 am:       

In 1994, the Supreme Court said that namaz could be offered anywhere and that a mosque was not necessary.


The Supreme Court has refused to revisit its 1994 ruling that the government can acquire land that a mosque is built on. In the Ismail Farooqui judgement, the court had ruled then that namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere and a mosque is not essential. The ruling will not be referred to a larger bench, the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said. It could also be one of the last verdicts that Chief Justice Misra deliver, before he retires.

Misra ji..ide aakhri mauka eseyandi

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image HASH(0x9456534){Movie Clipart}
Show / hide regular icons selection options

Click on following links to open cliparts by Alphabetical Order

 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M  

N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z  

Show / Hide Filmy icons selection options

Click on following links to open cliparts by Alphabetical Order

  A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M  

N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z  

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: