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.
Al-Noor
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:55 am

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

#1831

Unread post by Al-Noor » Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:55 pm

keep counting dates, they will join hands outside court and leave you naked on road. wait and see.

Best is start learning deen by your own, learn Quran and hadith and save your kids from these mafia.

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

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

#1832

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:13 pm

Al-Noor wrote:keep counting dates, they will join hands outside court and leave you naked on road. wait and see.

Best is start learning deen by your own, learn Quran and hadith and save your kids from these mafia.
I am agree with u..... but I like to read about court case. :D

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

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

#1833

Unread post by adna_mumin » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:21 pm

next_generation2014 wrote:Next date is 29-07-2015.......
Bombay High Court wrote:IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUITS NO. 337 OF 2014

KHUZEMABHAI SYEDNA TAHER
SAIFUDDIN SAHAB
....Petitioner.
V/S
MUFADDAL BURHANUDDIN SAIFUDDIN ....Respondent.

Mr Chirag Mody with Ms. Hemangi Abhyankar , Smit Sukla i/by M/s. DSK
Legal for Plaintiff

Mr. F. D\'Vitre, Sr Adv with Mr. Janak Dwarkadas,Sr. Adv Pankaj Sawant,
Sr. Adv. Mr. Puniwala, Mr. Shaheen Pradhan i/by M/s. j. Sagar and
Associates for Defendant

CORAM : G.S. PATEL, J
DATE : 15th June, 2015
P.C. :
List on 29.07.2015.
(G.S. PATEL, J.)
What a cruel joke!

If this is the "expedited" schedule the petitioner agreed to in lieu of interim relief it has been duped by the Court.

I think with the second Shehrullah after Moula Mohammed Burhanuddin RA leaving us, it is now time to close the case in mumin's minds, forget all about it. There is no "case" here to follow, just a joke going on with lots of money distributing all over to useless lawyers.

The Salman Khan case and Jayalalitha case only reinforced that fact more and more.

Those who claimed to have some "full faith" got to really elaborate what they really meant. Everyone's patience is finite, after all.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#1834

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:16 am

Admin, please re-consider and change this thread back to:

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

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

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

#1835

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:26 pm

I just happened to browse an article on this forum which is informative and relevant to the succession issue :-

According to Dawoodi Bohra Ismaili Faith, the succession of a Dai is governed by Divine right of Nass inspired by the Imam of the time or hidden imam and not by heritance or democratic election.

The best and the most learned and pious member of the community irrespective of his financial standing was chosen by the Dai before his death, trained and if the choice was approved by Divine inspiration from Imam the nomination was publicly declared in an assembly of the faithful, and such nomination was known as Nasse-Jali.

Late Sayedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb has defined “Dai” in his book “Zua Nure Haqqun Mubin” as one who invites the people to the right path of Allah by modestly preaching the virtues and philosophy of Islam, derived from 14th para of the 21st Ruku of the holy Qur’an “Ud, oo, Ila Sabile Rabbika, bil Hikmat Wal muazatul Hasana” – Call them to the path of thy Lord tactfully and by good manner.

From first Dai Sayedna Zoeb till 24th Dai Sayedna Yusuf Najmuddin in a span of 441 years Dais remained in Yemen but they kept on sending their deputies from Yemen to India. A training school was kept in Yemen for training the candidates from India.

Thus even the descendants of the first Hindu coverts from Raja Sidhraj Jaisingh (Bharmal)’s family were patronised and called to Yemen and trained. One Mulla Raj was raised to the degree in Dawat and his son Sayedna Ismailji Badruddin was rose to the post of Dai. After him 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd and 46th Dais that is nine other members of Bharmal’s family were raised to the status of a Dai.

This clearly shows that earlier Dais never hesitated to recognise the superior qualifications of the outside ordinary Bohras against their own children.

This also dismisses the claim that the present incumbents have any linkage from the holy Prophet or the people of his house (Ahle-byat or Imam).

However after the death of 46th Dai Sayedna Badruddin Saheb, the last of the converted Royal Rajput family of Gujarat, the present dynastic rule commenced.


I may add here that according to the writer of “Mousame Bahar (Vol. III), Mohammad Ali s/o Mulla Jiva bhai published with Raza Mubarak (holy permission) of 47th Dai Sayedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin Saheb; On the death of 46th Dai Sayedna Badruddin Saheb a council of leading Mashaikhs (qualified learned men) of the time named as “Hilful-Fazail” was formed which was headed by Shaikh Imamuddin. Since 46th Dai had suddenly died at a young age apparently from the effect of food poisoning two days before appointment and public declaration of his successor, these Mashaikhs took the oath of allegiance to 47th Dai Sayedna Najmuddin swearing his superiority in learning, piety and administrative ability. But for the fist time the belief in Divine character of Dawate-Hadiya of these Mashaikhs and the community had slackened as they suspected the chain of succession to Dais hereafter by Divine right had broken and Dais were there merely for Nizamat or management of the affairs of the Dawat. (“Mousame Bahar, page 519, Vol. III). Thus a controversy aroused against him and split in the form of Mahdibag-wallas took placed.

The shrewd Sayedna Najmuddin Saheb dealt this controversial situation very tactfully and ruled for 46 years. In order to create the opinion in his favour he increased the numbers of Mashaikhs without any test of their qualification, quality and character so profusely that the degree, honour and the title of Shaikh lost its original value amongst the learned. Earlier this degree of Shaikh was given to chosen few who had acquired required education, who knew Arabic and who had gone through the long training and had proved their merits. He conferred the title of Shaikh on undeserving persons who happened to be rich or influential. Thus the Mushaikhs of Hilful Fazail lost their value and hence influence in the crowd of the ignorant Mashaikhs.

Sayedna Najmuddin appointed his brother Sayedna Hushamuddin as his successor and thus dictated a policy of succession in his family.

Incidentally Sayedna Najmuddin was the grandfather of 51st Dai Sayedna Taher Saifuddin who self-assumed the title of “Daiul-Mutlaq” after remaining satisfied with the name of Bada Mullaji and Sardar in the first few years of his office.

I want to make it clear here that we Dawoodi Bohra Reformists are not at all concerned with the merits of this controversy and this only for information to understand the current situation.

By S.Insaf.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#1836

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:35 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote:Admin, please re-consider and change this thread back to:

Re: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court
Thank you, Admin.

new_james
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:29 am

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

#1837

Unread post by new_james » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:33 am

will the brothers or uncles of MS take the stand and give their testimony supporting/protecting MS as their leader

i am sure they will also open a can of worms. this is more fun than the daily soap opera

kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

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

#1838

Unread post by kimanumanu » Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:15 am

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 337 OF 2014
Khuzemabhai Syedna Taher Saifuddin Sahab
...Plaintiff
Versus
Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin
...Defendant
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate
, with Mr. Chirag Mody, Mr.
Samit Shukla & Ms. Manasi Vyas, i/b DSK Legal, for the
Plaintiff.
Mr. Firdosh Pooniwala
, with Mr. A. Faizullabhoy, Varghese Thomas,
& Shahen Pradhan, i/b J. Sagar, for the Defendant.
CORAM:
G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:
24th June 2015
PC:-
1.
Both sides agree that the same arrangements as previously
made will need to be made for the next dates of trial, i.e., 29th July,
31st July 2015, 3rd August 2015, 4th August 2015, 24th August
2015 and 25th August 2015. These arrangements will need to be
made in Court Room No. 46 from 12.00 noon onwards.
2.
Registry is directed to obtain the necessary permissions for
use of Court Room No. 46 on these dates. The Deputy Registrar
(I.T.), High Court is directed to obtain an estimate of the costs of
the necessary audio visual equipment required for these dates. This
estimate shall then be communicated to the Advocates on record
for both the sides, calling for the necessary advances.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)

new_james
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:29 am

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

#1839

Unread post by new_james » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:27 am

how come dates are so far apart. is ms doing delay tactics?

new_james
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:29 am

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

#1840

Unread post by new_james » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:58 pm

in the last 18 months, i have not seen M.saifuddin saying that he is the Dai many times. while quite the opposite for syedna Qutbuddin. two possible explanations for MS's behavior:

1. one he really does not believe he is the "true" dai
2. the more practical answer, his lawyers advising him not to say it, bcoz be may have to testify in court.

SBM
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

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

#1841

Unread post by SBM » Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:13 pm

Good Observation, In this post by Dawedar about Raudat Tahera, all it says Khuda Taala Huzur Aala ni umer daraz karey without mentioning his name ( no more Mansur Ul Yaman etc..)

download/file.php?id=1700&mode=view

new_james
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:29 am

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

#1842

Unread post by new_james » Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:18 pm

is ezzuddin loosing his mojo. no one gave him money when he went to London as saheb E dawat. london is considered his backyard.

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

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

#1843

Unread post by rational_guy » Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:21 am

Syedna Qutbuddin TUS testimony dates

Wednesday 29th July, Friday 31st July, Monday 3rd August, Tuesday 4th August

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

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

#1844

Unread post by rational_guy » Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:25 am

This is the summarisation of the previous testimony held in April 2015.

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.

SBM
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

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

#1845

Unread post by SBM » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:15 pm

Prayed for long life of Syedna : Half-brother tells HC
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 273001.cms

kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

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

#1846

Unread post by kimanumanu » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:37 pm

Story from page 4 - City, dnaofmumbai

I can’t enter Raudat Tahera: Khuzaima

Mustafa Plumber @plumbermushi
Khuzaima Qutbuddin, uncle of the incumbent 53rd Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, on Friday informed the Bombay HC that his entry inside Raudat Tahera, the mausoleum, has been prohibited and he was feeling very hurt about it.

Qutbuddin is being cross examined in the HC in a suit filed by him claiming to be declared as the rightful 53rd Syedna. He informed the court that Raudat Tahera is the mausoleum of his revered father, late 51st dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin and his successor 52nd dai, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. “I was involved in its construction but now it has been prohibited by defendant (Mufaddal) and on his instructions.”

On being asked to cite an instance when he (Qutbuddin) entry was denied, he replied, “I had sent my sons to visit the Raudat Tahera a few months ago. They were beaten and pushed away. I did not personally go because my security has advised me not do so. They told me not to take risk because the people on the other side were in that state of mind.”

Counsel Iqbal Chagla appearing for Mufaddal showed several documents to Qutbuddin and sought his reply on whether those were written by the 52nd Dai and whether he recognized it. To some he accepted and to some he replied in the negative or sought to study them.

Qutbuddin had in an earlier hearing informed that the 52nd Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed him as the mazoon and gave a sermon, at that time he said I was a beloved son. This carried the meaning that he was his successor. He again reiterated the same thing by saying that it is correct that my appointment as mazoon was done in a public sermon by the 52nd Dai.

In June 2011, Mufaddal Saifuddin was nominated successor, according to the press statement from the community. Qutbuddin publicly challenged the succession first time after the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin on January 17.

Qutbuddin claimed that he did not challenge the false claims made by Syedna Mufaddal until now because he (Qutbuddin) had been asked to maintain his appointment in confidence by Syedna Burhanuddin and was waiting for the late leader to get well to take up the issue with him.

kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

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

#1847

Unread post by kimanumanu » Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:05 pm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 302656.cms

I’m hurt at being barred from mausoleum: Syedna’s uncle
Rosy Sequeira,TNN | Aug 1, 2015, 02.18 AM IST
MUMBAI: The uncle of the Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin told the Bombay high court on Friday that he is very hurt at being prevented from visiting Raudat Tahera, the mausoleum of his father and his half-brother at Bhendi Bazaar.

Justice Gautam Patel is hearing a suit by Qutbuddin (74) to declare him the Dai-al-Mutlaq, the spiritual head of the Dawoodi Bohras. His father Syedna Taher Saifuddin was the 51st Dai and his half-brother Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin the 52nd Dai. Saifuddin succeeded his father as the 53rd Dai.

Qutbuddin was answering questions during cross-examination by Saifuddin's advocate Iqbal Chagla. Asked if was involved in the construction of the mausoleum, he said,"Very much.'' Next, Chagla asked how often he visits it. "I used to visit it almost every day. Now it has been prohibited to me (sic) by the defendant and on his instructions....I am very much hurt about this,'' said Qutbuddin.

Chagla asked him if there has been a single instance when he was prevented. Qutbuddin replied that he had sent his sons to visit the mausoleum a few months ago. "They were actually beaten and pushed away. There was some bleeding also,'' he said. But Chagla asked, "Have you personally been prevented from visiting the Raudat Tahera?'' "I did not go because my security advised me not to do so. They told me not to take a risk because the people on the other side were in that state of mind,'' said Qutbuddin.

He also said that "the incident of physical violence was in the newspapers as well''. When Chagla asked if the statement that he was prevented from visiting is incorrect, Qutbuddin said, "I don't agree. I stand by my statement.''

His cross-examination will continue on August 4.

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

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

#1848

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:14 pm

source: http://fatemidawatlegal.com/

he cross-examination of the Plaintiff (Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin TUS) in the Suit filed by him in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court resumed on the 29th of July 2015 at 12 PM and continued on the 31st of July 2015 in the historic Courtroom No. 46, presided by Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel.



The Plaintiff was cross-examined by Defendant’s (Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin) Senior Counsel Mr. Iqbal Chagla.



Over four sessions and 7 and ½ hours of cross-examination the Plaintiff was asked over 100 questions. More details will be posted next week inshaallah.



The cross-examination will continue on the 3rd and 4th of August.

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

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

#1849

Unread post by rational_guy » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:02 pm

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Arti ... 2015005015

Even my father viewed me as a successor: Syedna uncle
Rosy Sequeira
Mumbai:


The uncle of the incumbent Syedna of the Dawoodi Bohra community told the Bombay high court on Monday that even his father, the 51st Dai, had viewed him as a successor.
Syedna Taher Saifuddin was the 51st Dai. After the 52nd Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin expired on January 17, 2014, at the age of 102, his second son Mufaddal Saifuddin took over the mantle. Khuzaima Qutbuddin (74) has challenged his nephew's claim as the 53rd Dai.

Qutbuddin was answering questions during cross-examination before Justice Gautam Patel in a suit filed by him to be declared the rightful spiritual head. To a query by Saifuddin's advocate Iqbal Chagla, whether his appointment as a mazoon (successordesignate) by Burhanuddin was made in public or in private, he replied that his halfbrother appointed him mazoon at a sermon on December 10, 1965. “Before that, he called me to his room and told me that I will appoint you mazoon in the misaq majlis (gathering where oath of allegiance is given),“ he added.

Asked why members of the community wrote letters to him referring to him as maula, he said it was because the late Syedna (Burhanuddin) appointed him as a mazoon. “He also pronounced nass (the official declaration of succession) on me. He gave me his ring, which I wear to this day . He said that Syedna Taher Saifuddin used to wear this very ring. It was because he named me as his successor that I was referred to as maula. When he appointed me mazoon, he conveyed in his words and his blessings that I was to be his successor.“

When Chagla asked if ever before December 10, 1965, he was referred to as maula, he replied, “Yes“. Asked why , he answered, “Because the late 51st Syedna, my father, viewed me as a successor.“ Qutbuddin said that there is a “verbatim record“ in the form of an audio recording available of his appointment as mazoon. “The defendant has that as well,“ he said. The cross-examination will continue on Tuesday.




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

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

#1850

Unread post by rational_guy » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:18 pm

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-c ... ra-2109976

Khuzaima Qutbuddin, uncle of the incumbent 53rd Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, on Friday informed the Bombay High Court that his entry inside Raudat Tahera, the mausoleum, has been prohibited and he was feeling very hurt about it.

Qutbuddin is being cross examined in the HC in a suit filed by him claiming to be declared as the rightful 53rd Syedna. He informed the court that Raudat Tahera is the mausoleum of his revered father, late 51st dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin and his successor 52nd dai, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. "I was involved in its construction but now it has been prohibited by defendant (Mufaddal) and on his instructions."

On being asked to cite an instance when he (Qutbuddin) entry was denied, he replied, "I had sent my sons to visit the Raudat Tahera a few months ago. They were beaten and pushed away. I did not personally go because my security has advised me not do so. They told me not to take risk because the people on the other side were in that state of mind."

Counsel Iqbal Chagla appearing for Mufaddal showed several documents to Qutbuddin and sought his reply on whether those were written by the 52nd Dai and whether he recognized it. To some he accepted and to some he replied in the negative or sought to study them.

Qutbuddin had in an earlier hearing informed that the 52nd Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin appointed him as the mazoon and gave a sermon, at that time he said I was a beloved son. This carried the meaning that he was his successor. He again reiterated the same thing by saying that it is correct that my appointment as mazoon was done in a public sermon by the 52nd Dai.

In June 2011, Mufaddal Saifuddin was nominated successor, according to the press statement from the community. Qutbuddin publicly challenged the succession first time after the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin on January 17.

Qutbuddin claimed that he did not challenge the false claims made by Syedna Mufaddal until now because he (Qutbuddin) had been asked to maintain his appointment in confidence by Syedna Burhanuddin and was waiting for the late leader to get well to take up the issue with him.

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

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

#1851

Unread post by rational_guy » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:19 pm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 302656.cms

MUMBAI: The uncle of the Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin told the Bombay high court on Friday that he is very hurt at being prevented from visiting Raudat Tahera, the mausoleum of his father and his half-brother at Bhendi Bazaar.

Justice Gautam Patel is hearing a suit by Qutbuddin (74) to declare him the Dai-al-Mutlaq, the spiritual head of the Dawoodi Bohras. His father Syedna Taher Saifuddin was the 51st Dai and his half-brother Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin the 52nd Dai. Saifuddin succeeded his father as the 53rd Dai.

Qutbuddin was answering questions during cross-examination by Saifuddin's advocate Iqbal Chagla. Asked if was involved in the construction of the mausoleum, he said,"Very much.'' Next, Chagla asked how often he visits it. "I used to visit it almost every day. Now it has been prohibited to me (sic) by the defendant and on his instructions....I am very much hurt about this,'' said Qutbuddin.

kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

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

#1852

Unread post by kimanumanu » Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:29 pm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 367747.cms

HC judge bans phones in Syedna trialRosy Sequeira,TNN | Aug 6, 2015, 02.11 AM IST

MUMBAI: A Bombay high court judge, who is conducting the trial in the succession row between Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and his uncle Khuzaima Qutbuddin, has banned mobile phones in the courtroom. He, however, exempted advocates from the ban.

Qutbuddin has challenged his nephew's claim as the 53rd Dai or spiritual head of Dawoodi Bohras. The direction was passed by Justice Gautam Patel after he was informed by court staff that a person was seen taking a photograph of Qutbuddin while he was being cross-examined on August 4 by Saifuddin's advocate, just before the lunch recess. "It is unacceptable. I must safeguard the interests of the witness,'' said an angry Patel, when the court resumed post-lunch.

In his order passed in the chamber the same evening, Patel clarified that in this case special arrangements have been made for the video-recording of Qutbuddin's testimony.

"This was by agreement of both sides, having regard to certain special circumstances fully set out in previous orders. The matter is sensitive and affects an entire community," he added.

Senior advocates Iqbal Chagla and Ravi Kadam, appearing for Saifuddin and Qutbuddin respectively, agreed that clandestine and illicit taking of photographs in the court of witnesses cannot be permitted. "This is possibly even contempt of court and interference with the administration of justice," wrote Patel.

Patel directed that on all future dates of trial "except for advocates, no person will be permitted to bring a cell phone into the court hall where the trial is being conducted." The order added, "Should a photo- graph of the court proceedings or of the witness be found uploaded to any website, blog or any web-based service or social media, or transmitted or otherwise communicated, immediate action will be initiated."

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

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

#1853

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:59 pm

Next date: 19/8/2015

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

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

#1854

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:00 pm

Source : Fatemidawat

The cross-examination of the Plaintiff (Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin TUS) in the Suit filed by him in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court continued for four days, commencing on the 29th of July 2015 at 12:00pm in the historic Courtroom No. 46, presided by Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel. The cross examination continued on 31st July, 3rd August and 4th August.

The Plaintiff was cross-examined by the Defendant’s (Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin) Senior Counsel Mr. Iqbal Chagla.

Over eight sessions and 12 hours of cross-examination, the Plaintiff was asked about two hundred and fifty questions. These included the following:

Mr. Chagla asked, in the Plaintiff’s opinion, what was the significance of the 52nd Dai, Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA, referring to him as his beloved son (Al Walad-ul-Ahab), in the sermon while he appointed him as Mazoon. The Plaintiff replied that the 52nd Dai meant that the Plaintiff was to be his successor.
Mr. Chagla asked, Is it correct that in the sermon of which you spoke earlier, the 52nd Dai used precisely this expression Al-Walad-Al-Ahabb?

The Plaintiff replied in the affirmative and further said “I was his brother and also his beloved son.” The Plaintiff further said that when “The 42nd Dai appointed the 43rd Dai, who was his brother as his successor. He said that the 43rd Dai was his brother but was also spiritually his beloved son.”

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff whether the raza of the Dai is required to discharge or perform Dawat functions. The Plaintiff said yes. Mr. Chagla asked whether the raza of the Mazoon would ever be required, the Plaintiff responded yes, in case if Syedna is traveling. Mr. Chagla then asked if the Mazoon is able to issue a raza only if the Dai has already issued him (i.e. the Mazoon) a raza in the matter. The Plaintiff responded that while the Dai is whole and sole, the Mazoon-ul-Mutlaq holds a special raza granted at the time of appointment. However, the Plaintiff added that in his 50 year tenure as Mazoon of the 52nd Dai, it was his practice to always ask Syedna beforehand.

Mr. Chagla asked what is the Raudat Tahera, the Plaintiff responded it is the mausoleum of his revered father, 51st Dai Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, and the 52nd Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. Mr. Chagla asked if the Plaintiff was involved in the construction, the Plaintiff responded “very much so.” Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff how often he visited, the Plaintiff responded “almost every day.” The Plaintiff volunteered that he is now prohibited to visit by the Defendant and on his instructions, and the Plaintiff is very much hurt about it. Mr. Chagla asked whether there was a single instance where the Plaintiff was prevented from visiting, the Plaintiff responded that his sons visited a few months ago and were beaten and pushed, along with some bleeding. The Plaintiff said that his security has advised him not to visit, since the people on the other side were in that state of mind. Mr. Chagla put it to the Plaintiff that his statement that he was prevented from visiting the Raudat Tahera is incorrect. The Plaintiff did not agree and stood by his statement.

Mr. Chagla asked whether the appointment of the Plaintiff as Mazoon was done in a public sermon. The Plaintiff said yes.

Mr. Chagla asked what is the significance of the word “Maula”. The Plaintiff responded that, this [word] has a very deep significance and historical context. When the Prophet appointed Ali as his successor in Ghadir-E-Khum, he said in his sermon “whosoever the Prophet is the maula of, Ali is the maula after me.” Then Mr. Chagla asked if the term “Maula is only used for Dai in the community, the Plaintiff responded that “As the Prophet said, “maula” is used for the Imam and for the Dai.”

Mr. Chagla asked whether the Plaintiff was appointed as a Mazoon in private or public, the Plaintiff responded that he was appointed in the sermon in public. Prior to that, Syedna called him to his room and informed him that he would appoint him in the misaq majlis. Mr. Chagla asked what was the significance of the Plaintiff being referred to as “Moula” by members of the community. The Plaintiff replied that the reason he was addressed as a maula was because the Syedna had appointed him as the mazoon. He also pronounced nass on the Plaintiff. He gave the Plaintiff his ring, which the Plaintiff wears to this day. He said that Syedna Taher Saifuddin used to wear this very ring. It was because he named the Plaintiff as his successor that the Plaintiff was referred to as maula. When he appointed the Plaintiff as mazoon he conveyed in his words and blessings that the Plaintiff was to be his successor.

Mr. Chagla asked why the Plaintiff was referred to as “Moula” before 1965, and the Plaintiff said yes, because the 51st Dai viewed him as a successor.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#1855

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:30 am

Any other insight into what is going on in the court case?

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

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

#1856

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:32 pm

At this time we can't get much information from internet... Can anyone who had got chance to sit inside the Court give more information in details?
As per my understanding court allowed media to go inside the Court. So I think there would be some person from central board of db or PDB had got chance to go insight the Court.

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

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

#1857

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:47 am

Next Date:- 24/08/2015

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

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

#1858

Unread post by humanbeing » Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:54 am

When is the Muffy Maula invited for cross questioning in the case ? that would be a lot of fun .. !!

hamhyd
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:09 am

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

#1859

Unread post by hamhyd » Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:24 am

humanbeing wrote:When is the Muffy Maula invited for cross questioning in the case ? that would be a lot of fun .. !!

court invite nathi kartu summon kare che

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

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

#1860

Unread post by dawedaar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:21 am

I wonder how the words of SKQ are interpreted due to this condition. I once did salaam and dua araz to him, more than a decade ago and his words were not understandable and his assistant had to interpret it.
next_generation2014 wrote:Source : Fatemidawat

The cross-examination of the Plaintiff (Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin TUS) in the Suit filed by him in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court continued for four days, commencing on the 29th of July 2015 at 12:00pm in the historic Courtroom No. 46, presided by Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel. The cross examination continued on 31st July, 3rd August and 4th August.

The Plaintiff was cross-examined by the Defendant’s (Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin) Senior Counsel Mr. Iqbal Chagla.

Over eight sessions and 12 hours of cross-examination, the Plaintiff was asked about two hundred and fifty questions. These included the following:

Mr. Chagla asked, in the Plaintiff’s opinion, what was the significance of the 52nd Dai, Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA, referring to him as his beloved son (Al Walad-ul-Ahab), in the sermon while he appointed him as Mazoon. The Plaintiff replied that the 52nd Dai meant that the Plaintiff was to be his successor.
Mr. Chagla asked, Is it correct that in the sermon of which you spoke earlier, the 52nd Dai used precisely this expression Al-Walad-Al-Ahabb?

The Plaintiff replied in the affirmative and further said “I was his brother and also his beloved son.” The Plaintiff further said that when “The 42nd Dai appointed the 43rd Dai, who was his brother as his successor. He said that the 43rd Dai was his brother but was also spiritually his beloved son.”

Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff whether the raza of the Dai is required to discharge or perform Dawat functions. The Plaintiff said yes. Mr. Chagla asked whether the raza of the Mazoon would ever be required, the Plaintiff responded yes, in case if Syedna is traveling. Mr. Chagla then asked if the Mazoon is able to issue a raza only if the Dai has already issued him (i.e. the Mazoon) a raza in the matter. The Plaintiff responded that while the Dai is whole and sole, the Mazoon-ul-Mutlaq holds a special raza granted at the time of appointment. However, the Plaintiff added that in his 50 year tenure as Mazoon of the 52nd Dai, it was his practice to always ask Syedna beforehand.

Mr. Chagla asked what is the Raudat Tahera, the Plaintiff responded it is the mausoleum of his revered father, 51st Dai Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, and the 52nd Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. Mr. Chagla asked if the Plaintiff was involved in the construction, the Plaintiff responded “very much so.” Mr. Chagla asked the Plaintiff how often he visited, the Plaintiff responded “almost every day.” The Plaintiff volunteered that he is now prohibited to visit by the Defendant and on his instructions, and the Plaintiff is very much hurt about it. Mr. Chagla asked whether there was a single instance where the Plaintiff was prevented from visiting, the Plaintiff responded that his sons visited a few months ago and were beaten and pushed, along with some bleeding. The Plaintiff said that his security has advised him not to visit, since the people on the other side were in that state of mind. Mr. Chagla put it to the Plaintiff that his statement that he was prevented from visiting the Raudat Tahera is incorrect. The Plaintiff did not agree and stood by his statement.

Mr. Chagla asked whether the appointment of the Plaintiff as Mazoon was done in a public sermon. The Plaintiff said yes.

Mr. Chagla asked what is the significance of the word “Maula”. The Plaintiff responded that, this [word] has a very deep significance and historical context. When the Prophet appointed Ali as his successor in Ghadir-E-Khum, he said in his sermon “whosoever the Prophet is the maula of, Ali is the maula after me.” Then Mr. Chagla asked if the term “Maula is only used for Dai in the community, the Plaintiff responded that “As the Prophet said, “maula” is used for the Imam and for the Dai.”

Mr. Chagla asked whether the Plaintiff was appointed as a Mazoon in private or public, the Plaintiff responded that he was appointed in the sermon in public. Prior to that, Syedna called him to his room and informed him that he would appoint him in the misaq majlis. Mr. Chagla asked what was the significance of the Plaintiff being referred to as “Moula” by members of the community. The Plaintiff replied that the reason he was addressed as a maula was because the Syedna had appointed him as the mazoon. He also pronounced nass on the Plaintiff. He gave the Plaintiff his ring, which the Plaintiff wears to this day. He said that Syedna Taher Saifuddin used to wear this very ring. It was because he named the Plaintiff as his successor that the Plaintiff was referred to as maula. When he appointed the Plaintiff as mazoon he conveyed in his words and blessings that the Plaintiff was to be his successor.

Mr. Chagla asked why the Plaintiff was referred to as “Moula” before 1965, and the Plaintiff said yes, because the 51st Dai viewed him as a successor.