SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1252

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs – Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Anil Anturkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Javed R. Sheikh, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shivani Viz, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. Mr. Mujeebuddin Khan, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. S. M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Shah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Rautela, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Satayam Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yusuf Baugwala, Adv. Ms. Sana Baugwala, Adv. Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bhagla, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sakya Singha Chaudhuri, AOR Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Mahesh Sahasranaman, Adv. Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A.S., Adv. Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Yusuf Hatim Muchhala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Ms. Nandini Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Satpute, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Sagheer A. Khan, Adv. Mr. G. D. Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Saif Zia, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Murtaza Kachwala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Moinuddin Algaus Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Abeezar Faizullabhoy, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Ms. Ekta Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Hussain, Adv. Mr. L. Nidhi Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakarareddy, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG. Mr. K. M. Natraj, ASG. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv. Mr. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Javed R. Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Ms. Suhasani Sen, Adv. Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv. Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Veeraragavan M., Adv. Mr. Kamran Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Sunil C. Chung, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. C. M. Jha, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Nair, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Punit Khanna, Adv. Mr. Pranay Thite, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Gaijala Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Adv.

Table of Content
1. background on the wakf act and its implications (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. formation of the wakf board and initial challenges (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments against the board's constitution and its legality (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's analysis of the legality and duties of the board (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30)
5. final conclusions regarding the approval and authority of the board (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

1. Leave granted.

3. The facts leading up to the litigation need to be referred to at the very beginning.

4. At this juncture, it is apposite that we may notice another dimension of the litigation which is the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 rechristened as the Maharashtra Pubic Trust Act, 1950. The real lis in this case surrounds the question as to whether the respondents before us who turned out to be the writ petitioners before the High Court are Public Trusts or they are in essence or in substance, Wakfs under the Mohammedan Law.

“Dated: 24.07.2003

Sub: The Muslim Wakfs/Trusts registered with the Charity Commissioner, and as per Sect


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top