TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, a one-member Waqf Tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction until a three-member Tribunal was notified by the State Government. (ii) Whether the absence of a fresh notification constituting a three-member Tribunal entitled the civil court to entertain and try waqf disputes and whether the amended provision worked an implied repeal of the earlier tribunal structure.
Issue (i): Whether, after the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, a one-member Waqf Tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction until a three-member Tribunal was notified by the State Government.
Analysis: The amended scheme of Section 83 required the State Government to constitute Tribunals by notification, but the amendment did not contain any express transitional arrangement showing that pending or future jurisdiction would lapse until the new composition was notified. The earlier tribunal mechanism had been functioning under the principal Act, and the substitution of the composition was treated as an improvement in structure, not as abolition of the institution itself. In the absence of a fresh notification, the existing tribunal was held to continue in operation so that adjudication under the Act did not come to a standstill because of State inaction.
Conclusion: The one-member Tribunal did not cease to exist merely because the 2013 amendment had come into force; it continued to exercise jurisdiction until a duly notified three-member Tribunal was constituted.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a fresh notification constituting a three-member Tribunal entitled the civil court to entertain and try waqf disputes and whether the amended provision worked an implied repeal of the earlier tribunal structure.
Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that repeal by implication is not readily inferred and arises only where the later enactment is so irreconcilably inconsistent with the earlier one that both cannot stand together. The amended Section 83(4) was not found to be repugnant to the earlier provision; rather, both could operate harmoniously, with the existing tribunal continuing until the new body was notified. Since the Waqf Act vested adjudicatory jurisdiction in the Tribunal and the legislative scheme showed no intention to transfer such disputes to civil courts because of administrative delay, civil court jurisdiction could not be invoked on that basis. The High Court therefore erred in directing civil court adjudication.
Conclusion: There was no implied repeal of the earlier tribunal provision, and civil courts were not given jurisdiction to try waqf disputes merely because the State had not issued the fresh notification.
Final Conclusion: The judgment under challenge was set aside in the main batch of appeals, the tribunal's jurisdiction was restored, and the dispute was remitted to proceed under the Waqf Act through the existing tribunal arrangement; only the connected appeal concerning continuation of the interim order was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A substituted statutory composition of a tribunal does not, by itself, extinguish the existing tribunal or oust its jurisdiction in the absence of an express transitional provision or clear irreconcilable inconsistency; repeal by implication will not be inferred where the earlier and later provisions can operate together.
TaxTMI 
