Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

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 It rejected contentions that the amendment had impliedly repealed provisions giving authority to waqf tribunals.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 2026 - All Rights Reserved