Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Section 66 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 69 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
98.Secondly, it must be recollected that the decisions and actions of the
Waqf Board are amenable to the power of superintendence of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That being the case, as
explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and
another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, [(2010) 8 SCC 329], this Court is
vested with the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, not only
to intervene in matters seeking relief in individual cases, but also in such
matters involving larger public interest for the purpose of promoting public
confidence in the administration of Justice. In this case, the Waqf Board has
been unduly delaying the appointment of the Advisory Committee despite
repeated assurance and undertakings. Therefore, this Court, as a last resort,
has given the aforementioned directions to protect the interest of the Dargah
and its devotees and to ensure that the Dargah is not deprived of proper
management for the want of positive action on the part of the Waqf Board.
R. Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 30 August, 2000
5.Apart from this, the Supreme Court in R.Balakrishnan Pillai Vs.
State of Kerala, [(2000) 7 SCC 129], has concluded that a Judge need not
recuse himself from hearing a matter merely on account of having appeared
as an Advocate for one of the parties therein. The Court was of the opinion
that the Judge having represented one of the parties on an earlier occasion
would not mean that the Judge would have a personal interest or connection
with such parties, and hence would be biased towards them. Such a recusal
would undermine the independence of Judiciary. Hence, I took up the
revision for final disposal.
Sudha Khemka And Another vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 8 April, 2014
73.I will usefully refer to a verdict of the Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE
SANJIB BANERJEE (As his Lordship then was), in Sudha Khemka and
another Vs. Central Bank of India and others, [(2014) 3 Cal LJ 119]. He
defined jurisdiction in the following terms:
Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989
89.In any event, by consent, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a
Court or Tribunal. This view is in line with that of the Supreme Court in
Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, [(1990) 1 SCC 193] and
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana
and others, [(2013) 10 SCC 136]. Therefore, the attempt of Mr.A.K.Sriram to
get the civil revision petition dismissed on the grounds of acquiescence by
the Board or suppression by the civil revision petitioner necessarily has to
fail.
Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Dir. Health Services,Haryana & Ors on 11 July, 2013
89.In any event, by consent, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a
Court or Tribunal. This view is in line with that of the Supreme Court in
Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, [(1990) 1 SCC 193] and
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana
and others, [(2013) 10 SCC 136]. Therefore, the attempt of Mr.A.K.Sriram to
get the civil revision petition dismissed on the grounds of acquiescence by
the Board or suppression by the civil revision petitioner necessarily has to
fail.
1