w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj v/s St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110MH2007PTC239900

Company & Directors' Information:- REV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH2007PTC239900

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

    CRL. R.C. (MD) No. 758 of 2019

    Decided On, 14 November 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN

    For the Petitioner: S. Palani Velayutham, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dr. Fr. A. Xavier Arulraj, SC, for R1, R5 & R6, M/s. Father Xavier Associates, R7, A. John Vincent, Advocates.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.1 of 2018 in Trust O.P. No.1 of 2008.)

1. The present revision has been filed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 340 r/w Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.

2. The facts in issue are not in dispute, except for the sale of a particular piece of property, which is the subject of Trust O.P. No.1 of 2008. The said property was of an extent of 16905 sq.ft. The 1st respondent herein sought the permission of the Court in the said Trust O.P., to sell the particular property belonging to the Trust. The court below, vide order dated 2.12.2012, disposed of the said petition by permitting the 1st respondent to sell the said Trust property by stipulating certain conditions, one of which is to fix the market price as the reserve price. Pursuant to the said order, auction notice was issued and the market value for the property was fixed and the said property was sold in auction and the sale proceeds have been deposited in the bank account and the amount is lying in deposit.

3. The petitioner herein, who is one of the Priest belonging to the Diocese of Tiruchirappalli, filed the petition before the court below alleging that the conditions stipulated by the court in fixing the market value as the reserve price has not been adhered to and that an extent of 874 sq.ft., from and out of an extent of 16905 sq.ft. was sold short, thereby, the said extent has been illegally encroached resulting in loss to the Trust and that the order passed by the court has not been complied with in letter and spirit. It was further averred that a huge amount of money has been swindled by persons at the helm of affairs and the auction is actuated by fraud and malice and, therefore, the said sale has to be set aside as null and void.

4. The above stand was opposed by the respondents contending that the allegations are wholly unfounded, unsubstantiated and not supported by any materials and that the lower price, alleged to have been fixed as the market value is not borne out by records at the instance of the petitioner and that the petitioner has knocked on the doors of the court belatedly after a lapse of more than four years and the said act is nothing but an act to vent his ire, which has been kindled due to actions taken on him by the concerned authorities. Further, the delay in the petitioner coming before the court at a belated point of time hits at the root of the case filed by the petitioner and it is only to skittle the process of law and was with a mala fide intention. It was further averred that the conditions imposed by the court has been duly complied with and the property was sold and the sale proceeds were deposited into a bank account and is lying there and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that amounts have been swindled is not borne out by records. Other contentions were also advanced to controvert the allegations raised by the petitioner.

5. The court below, on considerations of the submissions advanced before it and taking into consideration the authorities cited by the parties on the respective contentions, held that no circumstances have been established to the satisfaction of the court to invoke the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) and 340 Cr.P.C. The court below held that the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy the court that the offences alleged fall within the purview of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The court below further went on to hold that though the court is clothed with power to recall its own order, however, no prima facie case having been made out to invoke section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., the court cannot traverse beyond the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C., to entertain the petition filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C., and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present revision.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the submissions as laid out in the grounds filed in support of the petition and urged this Court that in order to render substantial justice and to safeguard the Trust from the injurious acts of unscrupulous elements, the order of the court below requires to be interfered with.

7. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, while questioned the very locus of the petitioner to file the complaint, however, went on to further contend that the court below, on proper appreciation of the materials available before it and also on a correct interpretation of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., has given a well considered finding, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

8. This Court bestowed its best attention to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record as also the impugned order passed by the Court below and also perused the relevant provisions of law, which form the very basis of the complaint before the court below.

9. The fulcrum of the complaint of the petitioner revolves around the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. For better clarity, the said provision is extracted hereunder:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. –

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

* * * * * * * *

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), (namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) ....

* * * * * * * *”

10. A careful reading of the above provision unambiguously portrays that the said section of law gets attracted where the alleged offence relates to false evidence against public justice is committed with regard to any proceeding before any court and that the alleged offence is in relation to using a forged document and using counterfeiting document, which are to be produced before the court in evidence in the proceeding. Therefore, to attract the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., the ingredients of false evidence and forged document and using counterfeiting document should be placed before the Court so as to enable the court to appreciate the said provision and take judicial notice of the same to entertain the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C.

11. In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials available on record as also the impugned order passed by the court below, mere assertions alone have been made with regard to fixing of less market value than the actual market value as the reserve price and, thereby, defeating the order passed by the court and also defrauding the Trust by swindling money, which is due to the Trust by way of sale of the property. The court below has categorically given a finding that no documents have been placed before it to substantiate the alleged charge raised by the petitioner against the respondent and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. does not stand attracted. Further, the court below has taken judicial notice of the various decisions on the subject and has come to a just and reasonable conclusion which falls within the parameters of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and has, therefore, rightly rejected the contention advanced by the petitioner.

12. The petitioner, even before this Court has raised the very same contentions and no materials whatsoever, as mandated u/s 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. are placed before this Court, to assail the order passed by the court below. Mere assertions cannot take the place of documentary evidence, more specifically in a case of this nature, where the court below has categorically held that not only the directions passed by the court are adhered to, but no documentary evidence has been placed to demolish the case of the respondent. The further fact that requires to be noted is that the proceeds of the sale transaction, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, have been deposited in an account, which remains untouched. This fact has not in any way been countered by the petitioner.

13. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of the permitted extent of 16905 sq.ft., only an extent of 16031 sq.ft., has been sold and, thereby, there being a shortfall of 874 sq.ft., for which there is no explanation by the respondent, however, the said fact has not been proven by the petitioner by filing necessary particulars

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

relating to encroachment or otherwise, which is a necessary ingredient of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, not having complied with any of the limb of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. cannot expect the court below to accept his mere assertions and entertain the petition filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C. The court below, on proper appreciation of the materials, has come to a just and reasonable conclusion and has given a elaborate judgment giving proper reasons in support of its conclusion, which, in the considered opinion of this Court does not call for any interference. Not only the conclusion reached at by the court below is just and reasonable, but the reasons assigned thereto is also detailed and cogent. This Court is of the considered view that the order of the court below is a well considered one and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference at the hands of this Court. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the criminal revision, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same isdismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 Rev. Noble Philip Versus Nevin Noble (Minor), Represented by Mother, Marin Josephine @ Tini High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-01-2020 Solomon & Another Versus Rev. Dr. Soosai Pakiam M. & Others Supreme Court of India
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Rev. S. Ananda Selva Kumar Versus Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Represented by its Administrator, Justice K. Venkatraman (Retd.,), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Rev. J. Daniel Gnanasekaran Versus The District Registrar, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-11-2019 Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder & Another Versus Arumaimani Sam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-10-2019 Rev. S. Immanuel Devakadatcham, Presbyter in Charge, Chennai Versus Prof.D.S. Luther, Secretary - Trustee, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Sushil Joseph Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Catholic Diocese, Muvattupuzha, Rep. by Bishop Most. Rev. Dr. Abraham Mar Julios, Moovattupuzha & Others Versus P. Muthaiah & Another High Court of Kerala
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
08-08-2019 Rev. Dr. M. Soosai Pakiam, Arch Bishop, Trivandrum Arch Diocese (Latin), Thiruvananthapuram Versus Solomon & Another High Court of Kerala
02-08-2019 Rev. Dr. Chegudi Ashok Babu @ Joshua Daniel & Another Versus Karunakar Sugguna & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Thampi Kannanthanam & Others Versus Molly George @ Molamma High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 C. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 V.M. Joseph Versus Kadanad Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2019 Clarence Joseph Bhengra Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
07-06-2019 M/s. The Trust Association of the Advent Christian Conference of India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director and Authorised Signatory Rev. M.G. Baktha Singh Versus Kamarasu High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 L'Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal Versus J.J Supreme Court of Canada
30-05-2019 D.B. Jatti & Another Versus Kambam Sudhir Joseph Reddy & Another High Court of Karnataka
30-05-2019 Thresiamma Manshoven Versus Manshoven Jacques Joseph High Court of Kerala
29-05-2019 Asha, Rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder Jonh D'cruz Versus P.K. Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
02-05-2019 Lydia Agnes Rodrigues (Since deceased) through her legal heirs & Others Versus Joseph Anthony D'Cunha & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2019 Evangelical Church of India Administrative Office, represented by its General Secretary, Rev.J.Sundara Raj Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2019 Viji Joseph & Another Versus P. Chander & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Management of St. Joseph of Cluny Montessori School, Pondicherry Versus The Director of School Education, Government of Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 Joseph Santhosh Kottarathil Alexander & Others Versus The Superintendent of Customs (Aiu), Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
29-03-2019 Joseph Peter & Others Versus Elizabath Manuel & Others High Court of Kerala
25-03-2019 Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai Versus St. Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Joseph Saldhana Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-03-2019 St. Marys Orthodox Church (Kattachira Palli), Alappuzha, Represented By Its Vicar Rev. Fr. Johns Eapen & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary to State of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-03-2019 K.A. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Sebastian Joseph Versus The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2019 James Joseph Murren as Trustee of the James J Murren Spendthrift Trust & Daniel Lee Versus Glenn Schaeffer Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2019 Tushar Versus Internal Complaints Committee Christ University, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Dr. Mayamma Joseph & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-02-2019 Shali Joseph & Another Versus S.K. Sasikumar High Court of Kerala
19-02-2019 P.B. Dineshan Pillai Versus Joseph @ Jose High Court of Kerala
18-02-2019 Joseph Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-02-2019 HDB Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Legal Officer (Kerala) & Authorized Officer, A.C. Pratheesh Versus M/s. Kings Baker Private Limited, Kottayam, Represented by Its Proprietor, Tom.P. Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
08-02-2019 Malabar Granites, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary , Koppam Grama Panchayat, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2019 Sami Labs Limited Versus M.V. Joseph High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2019 P. Santhosh Joseph & Another Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2019 Malabar Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2019 Thomas Joseph Versus Caculo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
24-01-2019 The Commercial Tax Officer, Changanassery & Others Versus M/s. Hotel Breezeland Ltd., Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Director Joseph Cherian & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Represented by its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District (2019) Supreme Court of United States