Supreme Court of India
SYED MOHIDEEN & ANR. versus RAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH & ORS.
- Decided
- 21 July 2010
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2010] 8 S.C.R. 777 · 2010 INSC 413
- Also cited as
- (2010) 13 SCC 62
- MANU/SC/0550/2010
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The application for substitution is allowed.
p. 777, margin G
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
p. 778, margin A
This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24th January, 2002 passed in C.R.P. No.1430 of 2001.
p. 778, margin A
The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned order and hence we are not repeating the same here.
p. 778, margin A
Having gone through the impugned order, we noticed from paragraphs 20 & 21 of the impugned order that the High Court has only observed that certain points were not considered by the Wakf Tribunal which should have been taken into consideration. Hence, the High Court remanded the matter.
p. 778, margin A
We agree with the aforesaid observations of the High Court and see no reason to interfere with the same. We, however, may make it clear that in terms of Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Wakf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court and has the same powers as are exercised by civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit or executing a decree or order. The civil courts are in turn
p. 778, margin C
competent to issue injunctions in terms of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. Similar orders can, therefore, be passed by the Wakf Tribunal also in suits that are legally triable by it if a case for grant of such injunction or direction is made out by the party concerned. These observations shall not, however, be understood to mean that we are expressing any opinion on whether a case for grant of an injunction had been made out in the matter at hand. All that we wish to clarify is that if the Wakf Tribunal upon consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances comes to the conclusion that a case for grant
p. 778, margin D
of interim injunction has been made out it shall be free to issue any such injunction. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal shall take a view uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or the order impugned before us. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 778, margin F