This judgment sets aside an order of the Wakf Tribunal holding that jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court, following the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram. Parties can seek remedies from the competent Civil Court.
The impugned order is set aside and parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of grievances.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1956 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.9.2010.
The Muslim Welfare Society
....Petitioner
Versus
Som Nath and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present:Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J
In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in the
case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006 , the matter has to be decided by the Civil Court and the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, the impugned order is set aside.
The parties are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court with regard to redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.
20.9.2010. Reema
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court or Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter per Supreme Court directive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza WakfFollowed¶12
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006
The Muslim Welfare Society
Som Nath
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
