Wakfs Act, 1954 – Section 56 – Waqfs Act, 1995 – Sections 63 and 83(9) – Succession Act, 1925 – Section 25 – Appointment of mutawalli . The High Court’s finding that the waqif intended that the mutawalli-ship should devolve upon Kammu Mia’s descendants only after the waqif’s direct lineal descendants are exhausted is patently incorrect in as much as the waqf deed does not contain any such stipulation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MD. ABRAR — Appellant Vs. MEGHALAYA BOARD OF WAKF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi,…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 – Mutawalliship – The word “putro” means son and grandson. In reading and interpreting the term “putro poutradi krome”, the meaning of the individual words must also be considered and accounted for. A combined reading of these terms lends support to the view that “putro poutradi krome” means son and grandson, generation after generation, and therefore does not include any female descendants
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SYEDA NAZIRA KHATOON (D) BY LR. — Appellant Vs. SYED ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED BAGHDADI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M.…
Classification based upon educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…
Thus, there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession – Plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence i.e. both as sword and as a shield. Appeal allowed.Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. Followed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. O. V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20(2)(c) – Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – To take benefit of clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendant in a suit for specific performance must show that he entered into the contract under the circumstances which though rendering the contract voidable, make it inequitable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEELADHAR (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 61 and 61(2) – Agreement to sell – Under Section 61 of the Reforms Act, there is a complete prohibition on such mortgage or transfer for a period of 15 years from the date of grant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. NARAYANAMMA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SRI GOVINDAPPA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B.R. Gavai,…
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 27(1) – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 21 and 48-A – Grant of occupancy rights – Cultivatory possession – Will is not hit by the embargo, whether that contained in Section 27(1) of the Act of 1948 or in Section 21 of the Act of 1961.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 22, 91 and 97 – Allotment of plot -Allotment of Plot No.2 in favour of the Appellant was illegal and that the Resolution passed by the Society in its meeting dated 25.03.1990 and the sale deed executed by the Society on 25.04.1989 were required to be quashed, are absolutely correct and fully justified – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVKISHAN — Appellant Vs. SUJATA TARACHAND MAKHIJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) – Sections 8, 15, 42 and 52 – Non-production of contraband – Appeal against acquittal – If the seizure of the material is proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed the entire contraband material need not be placed before this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. SAHI RAM — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 18 and 130E – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 16 – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rule, 1988 – Rules 9 and 9(1)(b) – Import activity – The value of the software and the concerned services were therefore rightly included and taken as part of the importation. Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…