Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1801

Unread post by Adam » Sat May 02, 2015 10:22 am

@dawedaar
If the evidences in support of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin are so strong, why is the court case prolonging? The opposition would have lost quite early. The prolonging of the court case implies that SMS side doesn't have solid or substanstial proof to prove that Burhanuddin Maula (RA) did a clear nas!


Are you familiar with Law in the Indian Subcontinent?
Sitting duck cases take YEARS, simply because the Law is such. It supposedly gives a chance to both sides.
I don't see this case ending within a few years.

Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin was Mazoon and Mansoos, like many of our previous Duat.
So why a Mansoos, who is considered as the highest rutba according to you (Mansoos = Dai), will endorse a lower rutba?


Huh?
Syedna Taher Saifuddin repeatedly mentioned that he was his Mansoos on many times, as well as the Mazoon.



dawedaar
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:40 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1802

Unread post by dawedaar » Sun May 03, 2015 10:05 pm

@adam... The cases take long due to lack of substanstial proof, eye witness, etc. If there is clear proof as abdes like u say that nas has been uttered clearly by Syedna Mohmmed Burhanuddin(ra), then court should have no problem in naming a successor. If there are videos that show nas being said clearly that the abdes brag about, then there should not have been any case. If I were on the dawedaar's side, I won't be such a fool to file a case if there was clear evidence of nas being uttered. All this proves that SMB RA has not uttered the nas clearly! This makes SMS also a dawedaar!
Adam wrote:@dawedaar
If the evidences in support of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin are so strong, why is the court case prolonging? The opposition would have lost quite early. The prolonging of the court case implies that SMS side doesn't have solid or substanstial proof to prove that Burhanuddin Maula (RA) did a clear nas!


Are you familiar with Law in the Indian Subcontinent?
Sitting duck cases take YEARS, simply because the Law is such. It supposedly gives a chance to both sides.
I don't see this case ending within a few years.

Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin was Mazoon and Mansoos, like many of our previous Duat.
So why a Mansoos, who is considered as the highest rutba according to you (Mansoos = Dai), will endorse a lower rutba?


Huh?
Syedna Taher Saifuddin repeatedly mentioned that he was his Mansoos on many times, as well as the Mazoon.



AgnosticIndian
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:10 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1803

Unread post by AgnosticIndian » Sun May 03, 2015 11:05 pm

Which country do you live in?

With all clear evidence and proof court cases in India can go on for decades.

Considering that, this succession case is going on at blistering pace!
dawedaar wrote:@adam... The cases take long due
to lack of substanstial proof, eye witness, etc. If there is clear proof as abdes like u say that nas has been uttered clearly by Syedna Mohmmed Burhanuddin(ra), then court should have no problem in naming a successor. If there are videos that show nas being said clearly that the abdes brag about, then there should not have been any case. If I were on the dawedaar's side, I won't be such a fool to file a case if there was clear evidence of nas being uttered. All this proves that SMB RA has not uttered the nas clearly! This makes SMS also a dawedaar!
Adam wrote:@dawedaar


Are you familiar with Law in the Indian Subcontinent?
Sitting duck cases take YEARS, simply because the Law is such. It supposedly gives a chance to both sides.
I don't see this case ending within a few years.



Huh?
Syedna Taher Saifuddin repeatedly mentioned that he was his Mansoos on many times, as well as the Mazoon.



AgnosticIndian
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:10 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1804

Unread post by AgnosticIndian » Sun May 03, 2015 11:13 pm

@dawedaar this just today

Nearly a quarter of the cases pending in High Courts are still at the admission stage; in the Karnataka High Court alone, a Company Petition has been awaiting admission since 1985. Setting the record, however, is a case now with the Jharkhand High Court, that has been pending for 57 years.

This startling revelation is among the many insights into the functioning of High Courts across the country from an ambitious new database compiled by the Rule of Law Project of the Bangalore-based research organisation DAKSH, which was shared with The Hindu.

While the database aims ultimately to include all court data, it currently has information for 10 High Courts, and the data capture began from January this year.

Large differences of definition and data standards between High Courts meant that similar data was not always available for all of the 10 courts, the researchers said. The current database has so far captured 5.6 lakh cases and over 26 lakh hearings, which the researchers called a snapshot of the system — overall, an estimated 40 lakh cases are pending before High Courts.

“Two things have surprised us the most; first is the lack of uniformity in data maintenance. While people had alluded to this, the actual diversity between the different courts is unbelievable, given that the laws and remedies are uniform across the country. Second, even though pendency is known, putting number of days against each type of case shocks even the lawyers amongst us. Saying a case is pending for 1,500 days brings home a stark reality,” Harish Narasappa, co-founder of DAKSH, said.

Court processes contribute to pendency: researchers

The database has found that of the five High Courts for which the dates on which cases were filed were available — Gujarat, Jharkhand, Patna, Hyderabad and Karnataka — the majority of pending cases were less than two years old.

DAKSH researchers hope that their database of 10 high courts across the country will allow a better understanding of not just pendency, but also processes. “Unless we manage to bring efficiency into the process, pendency will not change,” Harish Narasappa, co-founder of DAKSH said. The database ultimately hopes to contain all court data.

In Patna, Gujarat and Hyderabad, 10 per cent of cases were more than ten years old. The oldest pending case in Jharkhand dated back to January 1958, in Patna to May 1970, in Gujarat to December 1980, in Karnataka to January 1985 and in Hyderabad to July 1989.

No admission

Moreover, the numbers show that many pending cases are still at early stages of trial. The oldest case pending in Karnataka, for instance, is a Company Petition originally filed in Dharwad district in 1985 against a sugar factory. The case frequently appears before the High Court’s judges — it last appeared in February this year — but has not yet been even admitted.

In the five High Courts in which details on the current stage of the case were available, nearly a quarter of all cases were at the admissions stage. Nearly half of all pending cases in Hyderabad, and over a fifth in Gujarat and Patna were at the admissions stage.

Disposal rates

Among nine High Courts for which comparable data was available, Gujarat disposed of the maximum cases proportionate to the total cases in its system during the first quarter of this year, while Calcutta disposed the fewest.

However judge strength, holidays, and difficulty of cases can affect rate of disposal, the researchers said.

Last year, the Law Commission of India took note of the wildly varying methods of classification and data management used by different High Courts in the country. Chairperson Justice A P Shah told The Hindu that the Commission was working on a uniform method of data collection for the whole country, including the procedure for collection of data and data management.

http://m.thehindu.com/data/new-database ... 67718.ece/

rational_guy
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:21 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1805

Unread post by rational_guy » Mon May 04, 2015 9:29 am

Source: Fatemi Dawat

Some of the transcripts from the cross examination

The Plaintiff was cross-examined by Defendant’s (Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin) Senior Counsel Mr. Iqbal Chagla. Over three sessions and 5 and ½ hours of cross-examination the Plaintiff was asked several questions.

Some of them were: Mr Chagla asked: Why was the Nass conferred on 10th December 1965 secret and unwitnessed. The Plaintiff replied that it was the decision of Syedna (Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA) to keep it secret and that he, the Plaintiff, was the witness.

Further Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff why he was asked to keep the Nass in confidence and not disclose it. He answered that it was not for him to guess why Syedna asked this of him. Syedna instructed him to keep it confidential, and he obeyed him.

Mr. Chagla asked on what basis did the Plaintiff form the conjecture that there was danger to his life if the Nass was publicly announced, as he had stated in the Plaint para 29. The Plaintiff responded that Syedna (52nd Dai) had told his uncle (Mukasir Saheb Saleh Bhaisaheb Saifiyuddin) when asked why the nass was not made public, that if he (the 52nd Dai) would have done so then “talwaro chali jati”

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff that other than Mukasir Saheb, who were the other people the Plaintiff was referring to in paragraph 28(i-1) of the plaint last sentence (This shows that certain key people, including the then Mukasir Syedi Saleh bhaisaheb knew about the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq’s nass on the Plaintiff and it explains why His Holiness did not declare the nass in an open manner, realising the intrigue and possible violence that may follow from disgruntled older brothers of the Plaintiff). The Plaintiff responded that the persons he was referring to included Busab Amatullah Aaisaheba (wife of 52nd Dai) and others.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff whether he believed that even the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was to be the successor of the 52nd Dai, referring to paragragh 31 sub-paragraph (a) of the evidence affidavit dated 13th March 2015. The Plaintiff replied that he thought so.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff whether according to the Plaintiff it was correct that there was no secret about the alleged nass conferred on him. The Plaintiff replied that it was possible because of the favours showered on the Plaintiff by the 52nd Dai.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff when he felt that Yusuf bhaisab Najmuddin felt “slighted and jealous” by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff replied it was approximately the year 1381 or 1382 A.H. (1961 or 1962). He then asked the Plaintiff when he felt Yusuf bhaisab, the Defendant and his brothers had started allegedly scheming against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff replied that Yusuf Bhaisaheb Najmuddin personally told him that he was “very jealous” of him in 1381 A.H. (1961 – 1962) because the Plaintiff had attained such a high position at so young an age. The Plaintiff further said that therefore, according to him, Yusuf Bhaisaheb’s scheming against the Plaintiff was from that time. He added that during the time of the 52nd Dai after a few years of his reign Yusuf Bhaisab had influenced the family of the 52nd Dai also including the Defendant and his brothers, and that the Defendant was the son-in-law of the Plaintiff.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff to name the brothers and supporters of the Defendant who were party to the scheming. The Plaintiff replied that apart from the Defendant, his elder brother Qaid Johar, Malik-ul Ashtar and Idris and the sons and daughters of Yusuf Bhaisaheb.

Mr. Chagla asked the daughters of Yusuf Bhaisaheb who according to the Plaintiff were involved in the scheming. The Plaintiff replied that the sons were Badrul Jamali, Qausar Ali, Saeedul Khair and the daughters were Jauharatush Sharaf
and Maria.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff to name the brothers of Yusuf Bhaisab
Najmuddin who according to him were part of this alleged scheme. The
Plaintiff replied that they were Ali Asghar Bhaisaheb Kalimuddin and
Qasim Bhaisaheb Hakimuddin.

Mr Chagla then asked what was the purpose or object of this scheme against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff replied that it was to malign him.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff what were the functions and duties of a Mazoon. The Plaintiff replied that there were several functions and duties of a Mazoon. In rank, he is next in line to the Dai al-Mutlaq. One of the main duties is the practice of the religion. He (the Mazoon) is the first one required to follow the guidance provided by the Dai al-Mutlaq. The Plaintiff said that in the doctrine, it is said that the Dai and the Mazoon together guide the community. It is also said that Dai and Mazoon are the fountains of spiritual knowledge for the community. The
ranks of the Dai and Mazoon are called “Rutba”. These are the only two who
are referred to in this manner. Both of them are the ones who spread spiritual knowledge. They are the ones who have the right to decide what spiritual knowledge is to be disseminated and from what text. They are the two persons who give knowledge to Muallimeen and Mutallimeen, (teachers and students). In the same manner, the Dai and Mazoon are in position to give knowledge to Mufideen (Professors and Teachers), as also to the Mustafideen (students) who are seeking higher religious and spiritual knowledge.

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff if it was correct according to the Plaintiff that the veracity of the Mazoon was beyond doubt. The Plaintiff replied “yes”.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has kept the matter for directions on June 15, 2015 and then the further schedule for further cross-examination will be decided.

dawedaar
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:40 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1806

Unread post by dawedaar » Mon May 04, 2015 10:45 am

Can somebody please show me or point me to the video which shows the nas clearly. Thanks. I have searched but can't find it.
AgnosticIndian wrote:Which country do you live in?

With all clear evidence and proof court cases in India can go on for decades.

Considering that, this succession case is going on at blistering pace!
dawedaar wrote:@adam... The cases take long due
to lack of substanstial proof, eye witness, etc. If there is clear proof as abdes like u say that nas has been uttered clearly by Syedna Mohmmed Burhanuddin(ra), then court should have no problem in naming a successor. If there are videos that show nas being said clearly that the abdes brag about, then there should not have been any case. If I were on the dawedaar's side, I won't be such a fool to file a case if there was clear evidence of nas being uttered. All this proves that SMB RA has not uttered the nas clearly! This makes SMS also a dawedaar!

next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1807

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Mon May 04, 2015 12:57 pm

court order2 of 27th April...
Would anyone please explain if he/she can understand anything from it?
court_order2_27Apri2015.pdf
court order 2 for 27th April 2015
(91.31 KiB) Downloaded 544 times


Akhtiar Wahid
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:22 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1809

Unread post by Akhtiar Wahid » Tue May 05, 2015 4:02 am

Muffadal Saifuddin and his clan are screwed now, they cannot prove those Raudat Tahera and Cromwell Episode nass videos in the court. It is clearly evident that if these videos were real and authentic in proving conference of nass then court would have already took the favor of Muffadal Saifuddin.

Now i can pray for Muffadal Saifuddin and his clan that Allah should still have some rehmat on them and forgive the grave sins which him and his clan has made.

Muffadal Saifuddin's time is up! you had few years of Pomp and now remaining years of agony!

murtaza2152
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1810

Unread post by murtaza2152 » Tue May 05, 2015 10:27 am

Akhtiar Wahid wrote:Muffadal Saifuddin and his clan are screwed now, they cannot prove those Raudat Tahera and Cromwell Episode nass videos in the court. It is clearly evident that if these videos were real and authentic in proving conference of nass then court would have already took the favor of Muffadal Saifuddin.

Now i can pray for Muffadal Saifuddin and his clan that Allah should still have some rehmat on them and forgive the grave sins which him and his clan has made.

Muffadal Saifuddin's time is up! you had few years of Pomp and now remaining years of agony!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1811

Unread post by JC » Tue May 05, 2015 5:04 pm

Murtuja2152,

Change your ID to 53! New Ruler is in place now .......... by the way what does 21 stand for?? Your age?? If yes, please update too .. :lol:

fayyaaz
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1812

Unread post by fayyaaz » Tue May 05, 2015 5:38 pm

JC wrote:Murtuja2152,

Change your ID to 53! New Ruler is in place now .......... by the way what does 21 stand for?? Your age?? If yes, please update too .. :lol:
Are you deliberately feigning ignorance of Bohra ways or just being bloody-minded? 52 is very, very holy. 52 is ever-living, al-Hayy, as if you did not know. And 21 is significant because that is the number of the Imam who went into ghaybat, again, as if you did not know. :roll: :roll:

Nafisa
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1813

Unread post by Nafisa » Fri May 08, 2015 2:24 am

Can someone provide information regarding the new case in Bombay High Court filed by SKQ for custody of children from mothers ?

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1814

Unread post by adna_mumin » Fri May 08, 2015 11:50 am

From the order of 18th March 2015 regarding request for deletion of documents:

"Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff points out that some of the documents in these three compilations, i.e., the documents at Sr. No. 4, 55, 218, 267, 270,271, 296, 297, 300, 307, 307A are all documents that the Plaintiff wishes to delete from the affidavit of documents, and from this three-volume compilation."

My notes:
  • This is an interesting list. Unsure if the request of deleting that from the affidavit means plaintiff does not vouch for them or wants to use them in his support or what... because the Diary entry and the Raudat video are in this list!

    Further speeches and letters of Shz QE seem to figure there prominently.

    The item 271 is obviously the Shz Malek BS standing up in masjid and proclaiming to have had xyz conversations with Syedna Burhanuddin RA.

    Unsure what was in the Ashura speeches of Shz MS of 1433 and 1434 (items 270 and 300)!
And these documents that the SKQ lawyer was requesting to take off from the affidavit are below:

4 Copy of certified copy of application filed by / on behalf of the Defendant with the office of the Charity Commissioner in Mumbai.

55 Copy of printout of website “mumineen.org” containing the pages of the diary entry.

218 Audio recording from Azad Maidan of Shehzada Qaidjoher Ezzuddin’s speech given on or around 30 January 2014 at the URL https://soundcloud.com/moiz-tyrewala/az ... e-speech-2 (duration 18 minutes).

267 Video titled “Nass-Raudat Tahera-19th Rajab 1432 (Part 1)” of 31 minutes 18 seconds available at the website
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q uploaded by user Mumin Mukhlis

270 Video recording of the 10th day of Muharram 1433 Hijri (December 5, 2011 as per Gregorian calendar) (duration 41 minutes 33 seconds) contained in a DVD.

271 Video recording on occasion of Lailatul Qadr (night of destiny) which is the 23rd night of Ramadan (10th August 2012) during prayers at Saifee Masjid (duration 38 minutes 23 seconds) contained in a DVD.

296 Print-out of letter to the resident editor of Hindustan Times, Mumbai, sent by Shehzada Qaidjoher Ezzuddin, on 23 April 2013.

297 Print-out of letter to the resident editor of Hindustan Times, Mumbai, sent by Anjuman-e-Shiate Ali, on 23 April 2013

300 Video recording of the 10th day of Muharram 1434 Hijri (November 23, 2012 as per Gregorian calendar) (duration 33 minutes 3 seconds) contained in a DVD.

307 Audio recording of excerpts of speech given by Shehzada Qaidjoher Johar Ezzuddin in Mumbai around September 21, 2014 (duration 14 minutes 26 seconds) available at the website http://youtu.be/ACmh_cud_oY.

307A Translated transcript of audio recording of excerpts of speech given by Shehzada Qaidjoher Johar Ezzuddin in Mumbai around
September 21, 2014 (duration 14 minutes 26 seconds) available at the website http://youtu.be/ACmh_cud_oY.

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1815

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sat May 09, 2015 1:27 am

if KQ wins case or atleast gets rights to dawat property people should give misaq to him, we all know none is on haq and all are crook, but KQ is less in tamasha bazi compare to muffaddal joker, and it will be good to be with some one with more education and guts.

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1816

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sat May 09, 2015 3:43 am

why KQ is asking to delete all these important documents?
looks like setting ho gayi between kaka and bhatija,,,, only abdes will lose in all these games.

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1817

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sat May 09, 2015 3:47 am

when kids run away with mother they had kept videos denouncing mufadal on you tube and suddenly that also got deleted....KQ is confused wants to do so many things but have no means or strategy to accomplish it.

next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1818

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Sat May 09, 2015 1:13 pm

adna_mumin wrote:From the order of 18th March 2015 regarding request for deletion of documents:

"Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff points out that some of the documents in these three compilations, i.e., the documents at Sr. No. 4, 55, 218, 267, 270,271, 296, 297, 300, 307, 307A are all documents that the Plaintiff wishes to delete from the affidavit of documents, and from this three-volume compilation."

My notes:
  • This is an interesting list. Unsure if the request of deleting that from the affidavit means plaintiff does not vouch for them or wants to use them in his support or what... because the Diary entry and the Raudat video are in this list!

    Further speeches and letters of Shz QE seem to figure there prominently.

    The item 271 is obviously the Shz Malek BS standing up in masjid and proclaiming to have had xyz conversations with Syedna Burhanuddin RA.

    Unsure what was in the Ashura speeches of Shz MS of 1433 and 1434 (items 270 and 300)!
And these documents that the SKQ lawyer was requesting to take off from the affidavit are below:

4 Copy of certified copy of application filed by / on behalf of the Defendant with the office of the Charity Commissioner in Mumbai.

55 Copy of printout of website “mumineen.org” containing the pages of the diary entry.

218 Audio recording from Azad Maidan of Shehzada Qaidjoher Ezzuddin’s speech given on or around 30 January 2014 at the URL https://soundcloud.com/moiz-tyrewala/az ... e-speech-2 (duration 18 minutes).

267 Video titled “Nass-Raudat Tahera-19th Rajab 1432 (Part 1)” of 31 minutes 18 seconds available at the website
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q uploaded by user Mumin Mukhlis

270 Video recording of the 10th day of Muharram 1433 Hijri (December 5, 2011 as per Gregorian calendar) (duration 41 minutes 33 seconds) contained in a DVD.

271 Video recording on occasion of Lailatul Qadr (night of destiny) which is the 23rd night of Ramadan (10th August 2012) during prayers at Saifee Masjid (duration 38 minutes 23 seconds) contained in a DVD.

296 Print-out of letter to the resident editor of Hindustan Times, Mumbai, sent by Shehzada Qaidjoher Ezzuddin, on 23 April 2013.

297 Print-out of letter to the resident editor of Hindustan Times, Mumbai, sent by Anjuman-e-Shiate Ali, on 23 April 2013

300 Video recording of the 10th day of Muharram 1434 Hijri (November 23, 2012 as per Gregorian calendar) (duration 33 minutes 3 seconds) contained in a DVD.

307 Audio recording of excerpts of speech given by Shehzada Qaidjoher Johar Ezzuddin in Mumbai around September 21, 2014 (duration 14 minutes 26 seconds) available at the website http://youtu.be/ACmh_cud_oY.

307A Translated transcript of audio recording of excerpts of speech given by Shehzada Qaidjoher Johar Ezzuddin in Mumbai around
September 21, 2014 (duration 14 minutes 26 seconds) available at the website http://youtu.be/ACmh_cud_oY.
You forgot the next line of order which is very imported:
The Plaintiff does not rely on these documents to
establish his case but in order to demonstrate the Plaintiff’s
contention that the claim of the Defendant is incorrect

Sceptical
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1819

Unread post by Sceptical » Sat May 09, 2015 2:45 pm

HighFlyer wrote:when kids run away with mother they had kept videos denouncing mufadal on you tube and suddenly that also got deleted....KQ is confused wants to do so many things but have no means or strategy to accomplish it.
always amazed by such posts on public forums.
Do you think KQ's camp or MS's camp are so dumb to not be prepared or have a serious strategy? :roll:

alam
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1820

Unread post by alam » Sat May 09, 2015 3:31 pm

Let the people lead, and the leaders will follow.
Our leaders have quite lost it - with their passion and commitment toward self-righteous zeal, pride, greed and jealousy. Of course, SKQ is a much better example than SMS camp, but they are all part of the same species, Homo Sapiens.

About time they start listening to the core of the battle cry from the Bohras of ALL types whether they are abdes, progressives, mukhliseen, or so-called marginalized "munaafekeens" for the last decades. The battle cry calls for simple things: fairness, justice, humility, accountability, transparency, respect, love and kindness.

Its not complicated. Simply calls for more heart and soul and less Ego.

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1821

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sun May 10, 2015 12:28 am

Sceptical wrote:
HighFlyer wrote:when kids run away with mother they had kept videos denouncing mufadal on you tube and suddenly that also got deleted....KQ is confused wants to do so many things but have no means or strategy to accomplish it.
always amazed by such posts on public forums.
Do you think KQ's camp or MS's camp are so dumb to not be prepared or have a serious strategy? :roll:
then why those videos are deleted? where are the kids videos denouncing mufaddal?

its a pityful situation actually now these so called leaders are taking orders from advocates and they are doing as they order to do, so basically now dai have got imam in form of advocates (nauzobillah)....these both jokers are dancing on tune of advocates.

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1822

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sun May 10, 2015 8:41 am

...

humanbeing
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:30 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1823

Unread post by humanbeing » Sun May 10, 2015 9:36 am

the very basis of the nass drama is based on the evidences presented by SMS to public .. while SKQ is depending on his private Nuss ... at least SMS's evidences must be cross verified by forensics and close the chapter. if the nass was so clear and umabigious as evidently portrayed by the videos.. the court would have not dragged the case so long .. it would have been open and shut case ..

both the DAI contenders are like puppets to legal and strategy team at both sides. SMS possibly controlled by brothers .. and SKQ possibly controlled by children..

alam
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1824

Unread post by alam » Sun May 10, 2015 2:50 pm

humanbeing wrote:.

both the DAI contenders are like puppets to legal and strategy team at both sides. SMS possibly controlled by brothers .. and SKQ possibly controlled by children..
alam wrote:Let the people lead, and the leaders will follow.
Our leaders have quite lost it - with their passion and commitment toward self-righteous zeal, pride, greed and jealousy. Of course, SKQ is a much better example than SMS camp, but they are all part of the same species, Homo Sapiens.
Reflecting back on my earlier contention of letting the people lead and the leaders will follow - I would elaborate that there are risks In that too as Humanbeing correctly points out. After all everyone is part of the same species, Homo sapiens. That includes brothers, sons, followers and leaders and advisers too. Part of troubles of the last 50 some years has been the leaders SMB erroneously allowing themselves and the Dawat organization to be lead albeit hijacked by unscrupulous elements insanely crazy in their self-righteous, pompous self-glorification. So the problem is not THE leader, but really the followers who also have been complicit in misleading the leader.

Sounds complicated? Oops!
Actually it's still simple: fairness, justice, respect, transparency, kindness, integrity and accountability.

seeker110
Posts: 1726
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1825

Unread post by seeker110 » Sun May 10, 2015 9:10 pm

Now the judge is the Imam.

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1826

Unread post by adna_mumin » Mon May 18, 2015 2:20 pm

kimanumanu wrote:ISSUES FRAMED ON 15TH SEPTEMBER 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 337 OF 2014
    1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated
      in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement?
    2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try
      the suit or grant the reliefs prayed for as stated in the
      Written Statement?
    3. Whether the reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff in prayers (b)
      and (h) are barred by the provisions of the Maharashtra
      Public Trusts Act, 1950 as stated in paragraph 3 of the
      Written Statement?
  1. What are the requirements of a valid Nass as per the tenets
    of the faith?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that a valid Nass was
    conferred/pronounced on him as stated in the Plaint?
  3. Whether a Nass once conferred cannot be retracted or
    revoked or changed or superseded?
  4. Whether the Defendant proves that a valid Nass was
    conferred on him by the 52nd Dai:
    1. On 28th January 1969
    2. In the year 2005
    3. On 4th June 2011
    4. On 20th June 2011
    as stated in the written statement and if the answer to
    Issue 4 is in the negative then whether any Nass proved on
    the Defendant as above consequently amounts to a
    retraction or revocation or change or supersession of any
    Nass previously conferred on the Plainitff by the 52nd Dai?
  5. What Judgment and Decree?
Does the fact that the court is well on course to hearing the testimony of witness(es), does it mean that Issue 1 above about maintainability and jurisdiction etc is settled?

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#1827

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Tue May 19, 2015 12:37 am

that is a very valid question, bhai adna_mumin. Does anybody have an answer?

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Sticky: The Indian Courts Observations On The Dai's Conduct

#1828

Unread post by adna_mumin » Fri May 22, 2015 9:48 am

Why has the title of the thread changed from

Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

to

The Indian Courts Observations On The Dai's Conduct

Perhaps it is more consistent with "reformists" and "progressives" stand that the Indian courts have made observations etc but how is it the right subject when what was being discussed over the last year and more was the Civil Suit S 337/2014 of Bombay HC?

This new name is a put-off for believing Bohras*. If admin is persuaded it is a request to revert to the old name. Thank you.

P.S: *believing Bohras - Dawoodi bohras followers of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA (and now either of the 2 parties of THIS case)

What's there in a name? Huh, enough said.

y-kuc
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:10 am

Re: Sticky: The Indian Courts Observations On The Dai's Conduct

#1829

Unread post by y-kuc » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:05 am

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has kept the matter for directions on June 15, 2015 and then the further schedule for further cross-examination will be decided.
Any Updates on this today :?:

next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

Re: Sticky: The Indian Courts Observations On The Dai's Conduct

#1830

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:53 pm

Next date is 29-07-2015.......