Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Mumtaz Ahmed vs Of on 16 November, 2016 cites

Bhanwar Lal & Anr vs Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Wakf & Ors on 9 September, 2013

16. Bhanwar Lal & Anr V/S Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Wakf & Ors, 2013 11 SCALE 210 follows the line of reasoning in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through LRs V/S Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 8 SCC 726, The decision of this Court in BHANWAR LAL & ANR V/S RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKF & ORS, 2013 11 SCALE 210 is not in any manner inconsistent or contrary to the view taken by this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs V/S Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 8 SCC 726, . We fully concur with the view of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram : (2010) 8 SCC 726, particularly with regard to construction put by it upon Sections 83 and 85 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 100 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf on 1 September, 2010

17. The matter before us is wholly and squarely covered by Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through LRs V/S Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 8 SCC 726, . The suit for eviction against the tenant relating to a waqf property is exclusive triable by the civil court as such suit is not covered by the disputes specified in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 217 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Faseela M vs Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee & Anr on 31 March, 2014

by the Apex Court in Faseela M. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another, 2014 AIR SCW 2503, wherein it was held by their Lordships that suit for eviction from wakf property is triable by a civil court and not by the Wakf Tribunal since the of Act does not provide determination of dispute of eviction by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 12 to 17 of the rt said judgment hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 56 - R M Lodha - Full Document

M/S Indian Technomac Company Ltd vs State Of H.P. And Others on 9 April, 2015

of The Act contains the mechanism for filing revision petition, thus, providing efficacious alternative remedy to the rt aggrieved party, rendering the writ petition not maintainable against the orders passed by the Tribunal. This view has been taken by this Court in case titled as M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No.4779 of 2014, decided on 4th August, 2014, and restated in plethora of judgments.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

K. S. Bhoir vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 December, 2001

"13. Be that as it may, the power of this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is to ensure that rule of law prevails and not to issue directions or writ to perpetuate illegality or to act in disregard to the settled decisions, statutory provisions, regulations and policy decisions etc. and in such situation, this Court can only sympathize with the plight of such students who for no fault of their own are being dislodged. Here, it shall be apt to reproduce the following passage from the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Bhoir vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2002 SC 444 wherein it was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - V N Khare - Full Document

Mohd. Abdul Kareem And Anr. vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board And Ors. on 17 February, 2004

In a similar case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case titled as Mohd. Abdul Kareem And Anr. vs. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, 2004(2) ALD 345, held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in disputes pertaining to Wakfs can be invoked by way of filing revision petition and not by the medium of a writ petition. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 13 of the said decision hereunder:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1