Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Rifa-Hul-Muslimeen Educational Trust, Represented By Its Principal/Hon. Secretary, Sri Taj Mohammed Khan – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State of Board of Auqaf, Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek multiple forms of legal relief. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background regarding registered waqf ownership. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. compensation distributed and its implications. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. challenges to late claims and periods of limitation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. trust's responses to waqf board notices. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. trust's financial transactions related to the waqf. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. details of the canara bank's involvement. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. submissions by legal counsel for trust and bank. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. waqf board's arguments against claims. (Para 24) |
| 10. court's focus on jurisdictional issues. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 11. court's evaluation on procedural adherence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 12. court's findings on alterations in waqf claims. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 13. judicial conclusion and implications of waqf board's demands. (Para 32) |
ORDER :
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.)
1. The petitioner in each of the above matters are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
W.P.No.11330/2017
a. Call for the record which ultimately results in passing the Annexure-A order dated 21.07.2016 bearing No.KSBA/MSC/29/MYS/2016 passed by the Respondent.
b. Issue an order, direc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
