Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Mohammed Akif Safvan vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 10 September, 2024 cites

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

20. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the view taken by the Apex Court at para 13 in the judgment reported in (1998) SCC 81, dt.26.10.1998 in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (referred to and extracted above), and also the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Intezami Committee Mazid-E-Osmania, rep. by its General Secretary, v. A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Secretary and Anr., reported in (1996) 6 ALD 661 (DB), the present Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 vide F.No.07/Hyd /C/2018/Z-1, is set aside. The 3rd Respondent is directed to initiate steps to appoint new committee U/s.18 of the Act, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, as per Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, and till such committee is appointed under Section 18 of The Waqf Act, 1995, the respondent Waqf Board is directed to take direct SN,J WP_38834_2022 27 control of Jamia Majid, Mallepally and ensure smooth functioning of the subject institution as per Section 65 of the Waqf Act, 1995, only to ensure the completion of the exercise as stipulated by this Court for the said period of four months. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978

A mere reading of the above is enough to convince that the Board has to be satisfied that it is necessary to establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. It cannot be the satisfaction of a Member of the legislative Assembly or a Minister in the Government of the State that will decide the necessity to establish a committee and who shall be the members of the committee. It is obvious and ancillary to the power of the Board to appoint committees, that it is SN,J WP_38834_2022 24 required to be decided not by any outside agency or person but by the Board. The Special Officer who exercised the powers of the Board thus could decide on his own whether it was/is necessary to establish the above ad hoc committee and who would/shall be the members of the committee. He could not have decided to appoint an Ad hoc Managing Committee because a certain Member of the Legislative Assembly wanted him to do so or because a Minister in the Government of the State endorsed the recommendations of the Member of the Legislative Assembly. One of the settled principles of law which Lord Esher M. R. stated in The Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook in the late 19th Century (1890) 24 Queens Bench Division 371, "if people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion' 'has found very many eminent approvals including that of the Supreme Court of India in S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1) AIR 1979 SC 49 and it is stated in the later, "the influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence". (4) The instant case, in our opinion, will squarely fall within the rule aforementioned particularly when the SN,J WP_38834_2022 25 influence of the Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Minister in appointing the Ad hoc Managing Committee is writ large in the facts that (1) all those named in the letter of the Member of the Legislative Assembly are appointed as members of the ad hoc committee and are placed in the same position as the letter suggested and (2) in any event there is clear proof that the Special Officer made no exercise of his own to find out whether there was any requirement to appoint an Adhoc Managing Committee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 284 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1