Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
S.Jaleel Ahmed vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 October, 2019 cites

State Of M.P.& Ors vs Sanjay Nagayach & Ors on 16 May, 2013

In reply to this contention that the writ is not maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 3 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Nagayach1, Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank2 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,3. He argues that a writ is maintainable, even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is to be accepted about the need for the petitioner to apply to the Waqf Board Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 251 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Mariamma Roy vs Indian Bank & Ors on 16 September, 2008

In reply to this contention that the writ is not maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 3 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Nagayach1, Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank2 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,3. He argues that a writ is maintainable, even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is to be accepted about the need for the petitioner to apply to the Waqf Board Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002

In reply to this contention that the writ is not maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 3 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Nagayach1, Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank2 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,3. He argues that a writ is maintainable, even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is to be accepted about the need for the petitioner to apply to the Waqf Board Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1488 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Board Of Wakf, West Bengal vs Anis Fatma Begum & Anr on 23 November, 2010

To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Board of 4 2012 (6) ALT 379 5 2017 (4) ALD 106 5 Waqf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum6. Therefore, learned counsel contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ in view of the statutory bar and also states that disputed questions of fact and law cannot be decided in a writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 248 - M Katju - Full Document

D.Venkata Krishna Rao . vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh Revenue ... on 25 March, 2014

Lastly, learned counsel submits that any dispute about the property and the title to the property can only be decided by a Waqf Tribunal and not by the writ Court. He points out that the assertion of the petitioner that the property is a private property is not a matter that can be decided in this writ petition and that as issues on fact are involved, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Waqf Tribunal alone. Learned counsel relies upon D.Venkata Krishna Rao v. Government of A.P., rep., by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad4 for the two propositions that (a) the errata notification relates back to the date of initial notification. (b) the question whether the property is a Waqf property or not is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal in a suit instituted for that purpose and that writ petition is not a proper remedy.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1