Follow:
- Next story Munusamy Sgp : The learned Judges posed several questions regarding the locus standi, merits, public spirit of the petition and it is filed against the guidelines issued by the Supreme court and Madras High court regarding PIL. When the Judges about to pass orders dismissing
- Previous story Senior Advt Wilson: https://twitter.com/pwilsondmk/status/1261486652129599490?s=12
Recent Posts
- Illayaraja case order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR A No. 4570 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.226 of 2025 Mythri Movie Makers
- Pallikaranai
- TN Government Returns Madras High Court Collegium Recommendations — First in Indian Judiciary In an unprecedented move in Indian judicial history, the Government of Tamil Nadu has returned the Madras High Court Collegium’s recommendations for the elevation of six District Judges to the High Court.
- : *Chennai, 03 December 2025* The writ petition W.P. No. 47451 of 2025, filed by Haji T. S. Ahmed Ibrahim, was listed today for admission before the Hon’ble Justice P. B. Balaji in Court Hall C-42. In this petition, the petitioner challenges G.O.(Ms) No. 97 dated 28.11.2025, issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (T1) Department, relating to the nomination and appointment of Waqf Board members. The petitioner contends that two non-Muslim members were not appointed, as mandated under the second proviso to Section 14 of the UUWMEED Act, 1995. He therefore seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said Government Order on the grounds that it is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law. He further prays for a direction to the State Government to constitute the Waqf Board strictly in accordance with Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (as amended by Act 14 of 2025) and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 15.09.2025 in *Re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025* (W.P.(C) No. 276 of 2025). Appearances: * Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, for Mr. Vashik Ali, appearing for the petitioner. * Mr. P. S. Raman, Learned Advocate General and Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Fazil, Government Advocate, for the State Government. * Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Avinash, for the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. The Hon’ble Court has adjourned the matter to 09 December 2025 for filing of counter affidavits and for further hearing. [03/12, 11:24] Sekarreporter: 👍
- This Court cannot sit on appeal against such a finding rendered by the sole Arbitrator. 35. In the upshot, this Court does not find any perversity or patent illegality in the award passed by the sole Arbitrator and none of the grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act has been satisfied by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. 28-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ss N.ANAND VENKATESH J. ss Order in Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 34 of 2021 28-11-2025
More
Recent Posts
- Illayaraja case order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR A No. 4570 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.226 of 2025 Mythri Movie Makers
- Pallikaranai
- TN Government Returns Madras High Court Collegium Recommendations — First in Indian Judiciary In an unprecedented move in Indian judicial history, the Government of Tamil Nadu has returned the Madras High Court Collegium’s recommendations for the elevation of six District Judges to the High Court.
- : *Chennai, 03 December 2025* The writ petition W.P. No. 47451 of 2025, filed by Haji T. S. Ahmed Ibrahim, was listed today for admission before the Hon’ble Justice P. B. Balaji in Court Hall C-42. In this petition, the petitioner challenges G.O.(Ms) No. 97 dated 28.11.2025, issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (T1) Department, relating to the nomination and appointment of Waqf Board members. The petitioner contends that two non-Muslim members were not appointed, as mandated under the second proviso to Section 14 of the UUWMEED Act, 1995. He therefore seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said Government Order on the grounds that it is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law. He further prays for a direction to the State Government to constitute the Waqf Board strictly in accordance with Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (as amended by Act 14 of 2025) and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 15.09.2025 in *Re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025* (W.P.(C) No. 276 of 2025). Appearances: * Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, for Mr. Vashik Ali, appearing for the petitioner. * Mr. P. S. Raman, Learned Advocate General and Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Fazil, Government Advocate, for the State Government. * Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Avinash, for the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. The Hon’ble Court has adjourned the matter to 09 December 2025 for filing of counter affidavits and for further hearing. [03/12, 11:24] Sekarreporter: 👍
- This Court cannot sit on appeal against such a finding rendered by the sole Arbitrator. 35. In the upshot, this Court does not find any perversity or patent illegality in the award passed by the sole Arbitrator and none of the grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act has been satisfied by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. 28-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ss N.ANAND VENKATESH J. ss Order in Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 34 of 2021 28-11-2025