<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (12) TMI 1698 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193984</link>
    <description>A substituted tribunal composition under the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 did not automatically extinguish the existing Waqf Tribunal or suspend its jurisdiction in the absence of an express transitional provision. The amended scheme was treated as a structural change, not abolition of the tribunal system, so the earlier tribunal could continue until a duly notified three-member tribunal was constituted. The amended provision was also not read as impliedly repealing the earlier tribunal framework, because repeal by implication is disfavoured unless the provisions are irreconcilable. Civil court jurisdiction could not be invoked merely because the State had delayed issuing the fresh notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2022 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1698 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193984</link>
      <description>A substituted tribunal composition under the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 did not automatically extinguish the existing Waqf Tribunal or suspend its jurisdiction in the absence of an express transitional provision. The amended scheme was treated as a structural change, not abolition of the tribunal system, so the earlier tribunal could continue until a duly notified three-member tribunal was constituted. The amended provision was also not read as impliedly repealing the earlier tribunal framework, because repeal by implication is disfavoured unless the provisions are irreconcilable. Civil court jurisdiction could not be invoked merely because the State had delayed issuing the fresh notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>