Supreme Court: Second Bail Order Must Record Changed Circumstances or Fresh Grounds  ||  SC: Severity of Injury Alone Cannot Prove Attempt to Murder Without Intent to Cause Death  ||  SC: Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Used to Claim Unintended Benefits, Lays Down Principles  ||  Kerala High Court: No Unrestricted RTI; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework  ||  Allahabad High Court: Juvenile Offence Case Does Not Bar Govt Job In Adulthood  ||  Gauhati HC: Burden Of Proving Citizenship Stays With Proceedee and Does Not Shift At Any Stage  ||  Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son    

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 It rejected contentions that the amendment had impliedly repealed provisions giving authority to waqf tribunals.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