Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)
M.A. Nazar vs Manjaly Muslim Jama-Ath on 9 August, 2013 cites

M/S Sahara India (Firm),Lucknow vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I & ... on 11 April, 2008

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Waqf Board, the common respondent, as also respondent Nos.4 to 13 in the writ O.P.(Wakf).26/2017 & W.P.(C).14020/2017 12 petition countered the contentions mainly contending that no notice or affording of an opportunity of being heard, is contemplated under Section 65(5) of the Act for invoking the power thereunder. It is submitted that to take over the administration of the Waqf, what is statutorily required is only the availability of evidence before the Board proving that the management of the Waqf had contravened the provisions of the Act. When once it is forthcoming from the evidence before the Board that the management of a Waqf had contravened the provisions of the Act, the power thereunder would be available for exercise and issuance of notice and conducting a hearing on such matter are absolutely uncalled for, it is contended. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, by way of reply, contended that the mere fact that issuance of notice or affording of an opportunity of being heard, is not expressly provided under Section 65(5) of the Act could not be a reason for violating the salutary principles of natural justice. According to the Senior Counsel, an order taking over the administration of a Waqf, in invocation of the power under Section 65(5), would invariably visit its Managing Committee O.P.(Wakf).26/2017 & W.P.(C).14020/2017 13 with civil consequences and therefore, the principles of natural justice should be read into the said provision that empowers a drastic action. The contra contention is nothing but a cavil, it is submitted. To buttress the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and anr. [(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 151], Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority and ors. [(2011)2 Supreme Court Cases 258], Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 733], Ashwin S.Mehta and anr. v. Union of India and ors. [(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 83], Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and ors. [(2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 519 and also a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sathyan v. Babu (2017 (2) KLT 890).
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 380 - D K Jain - Full Document

Automotive Tyre Manufactureres Assn vs The Designated Authority & Ors on 7 January, 2011

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Waqf Board, the common respondent, as also respondent Nos.4 to 13 in the writ O.P.(Wakf).26/2017 & W.P.(C).14020/2017 12 petition countered the contentions mainly contending that no notice or affording of an opportunity of being heard, is contemplated under Section 65(5) of the Act for invoking the power thereunder. It is submitted that to take over the administration of the Waqf, what is statutorily required is only the availability of evidence before the Board proving that the management of the Waqf had contravened the provisions of the Act. When once it is forthcoming from the evidence before the Board that the management of a Waqf had contravened the provisions of the Act, the power thereunder would be available for exercise and issuance of notice and conducting a hearing on such matter are absolutely uncalled for, it is contended. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, by way of reply, contended that the mere fact that issuance of notice or affording of an opportunity of being heard, is not expressly provided under Section 65(5) of the Act could not be a reason for violating the salutary principles of natural justice. According to the Senior Counsel, an order taking over the administration of a Waqf, in invocation of the power under Section 65(5), would invariably visit its Managing Committee O.P.(Wakf).26/2017 & W.P.(C).14020/2017 13 with civil consequences and therefore, the principles of natural justice should be read into the said provision that empowers a drastic action. The contra contention is nothing but a cavil, it is submitted. To buttress the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and anr. [(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 151], Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority and ors. [(2011)2 Supreme Court Cases 258], Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 733], Ashwin S.Mehta and anr. v. Union of India and ors. [(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 83], Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and ors. [(2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 519 and also a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sathyan v. Babu (2017 (2) KLT 890).
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 164 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next