Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I
Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman – Appellant
Versus
U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)
1. Heard Sri Hari Shankar Jain, learned senior counsel for the applicants through virtual mode, Sri Vishnu Shankar Jain, Sri Prabhash Pandey and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Wajahat Hussain Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Nasiruzzaman and Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Sri Birendra Prasad Maurya, Sri Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the proposed respondent no.5, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Court, who is assisted by Ms. Anjali Goklani, Advocate.
2. Noticeable that in this case, an impleadment application was moved on behalf of Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate who also wanted hearing on point of transfer, thus praying that he be implead
The High Court lacks the power to transfer proceedings between Foreigners Tribunals under Article 226 unless explicitly conferred by statute.
Ex-communication of a member of Dawoodi Bohra community – Right of religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion is always subject to morality – Issue of morality must be gu....
A single judge cannot declare a Division Bench judgment null; judicial discipline mandates adherence to higher court rulings, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations.
Religious practices are subject to constitutional morality and must not infringe on human dignity or public health, reaffirming the binding nature of higher court judgments.
The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in both courts; they must choose one forum for their remed....
The concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court under Section 24 CPC allows for transfer applications, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in the same manner after one cour....
The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in both courts; they must choose one forum.
The requirement of meaningful hearing under Section 24(1) of CPC is a statutory mandate before transferring suits, which must not be compromised.
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
Listen Article