Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection  ||  Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction  ||  Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws  ||  Delhi HC: Better Possessory Title Holder Can Recover Property From Occupant Without Superior Right  ||  Bombay High Court: Compensatory Afforestation Must Be in Same or Nearby Locality For Residents  ||  Bombay High Court Protects ‘MEFTAL-SPAS’, Restrains Use of Similar Drug Brand  ||  Supreme Court: Inclusion in Revised Select List Does Not Give TN MV Inspectors a Vested Right  ||  Bombay HC: ICC Cannot Hear Sexual Harassment Complaint over Non-Employer Transport Incident  ||  Ker HC Upholds Rule that Homeopathic Doctors Must Cancel Registration Before Enrolment as Advocates  ||  J&K&L HC: Evidence Negating Penetration Warrants Conviction For Attempt to Rape, Not Rape    

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 It rejected contentions that the amendment had impliedly repealed provisions giving authority to waqf tribunals.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