Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust and ors v. Magnum Developers and ors - (Supreme Court) (15 Dec 2015)

Single member Waqf Tribunal keeps jurisdiction till larger constituted

Civil

A challenge by Waqf Tribunals against a High Court finding jurisdiction for itself in matters involving waqf property was allowed by the Supreme Court. The Court considered if, after the 2013 amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995, which constituted a three member Tribunal, a one member Tribunal could continue to hear matters till such larger panel was constituted. It rejected contentions that the amendment had impliedly repealed provisions giving authority to waqf tribunals. It noted that the earlier law was not replaced by amendments in 2013, with both being able to stand alongside.

Relevant : Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla MANU/SC/0478/1986 Municipal Council, Palai vs. T.J. Joseph MANU/SC/0032/1963 Section 83 Waqf Act, 1995 Act

Tags : WAQF   TRIBUNAL   AMENDMENT   IMPLIED REPEAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved