Follow:
- Next story Adhilashmi Logomoorthy: Legal Eagle Elites is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: An Overview of Right of Easement with Special Reference
- Previous story Pongal gift case dmk affdavit
Recent Posts
- : *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
- Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused the plea to extend the deadline for uploading Waqf property details on the UMEED Portal, reaffirming that 5 December 2025 remains the final date. As Minister of Minority Affairs, I have received several requests from Waqf Boards and stakeholders seeking an extension. For any grievance or issue related to Waqf properties, the UMEED Act provides a clear remedial mechanism, stakeholders may approach the Waqf Tribunal as prescribed under the law. The Ministry remains committed to transparency, accountability, and strengthening Waqf management across the country.
- *Madras High Court* – *Judge:* Justice N Senthil Kumar – *Parties:* – Mythri Movie Makers vs. Ilaiyaraaja – Dr. Ilaiyaraaja vs. Mythri Movie Makers and 2 Others – *Date of Order:* Not specified – *Counsel:* – Mythri Movie Makers: M/s. Rahul Balakrishnan – Dr. Ilaiyaraaja: M/s. Thyagarajan K, A. Saravanan, S. Magaimairaaj – Respondents: M/s. Jidesh Kumar, Navod Prasannan, Vijay R Sekar, Akalya Ravichandran, G. Lakshmi Prathista Reddy, RV. Che Guvera, Dhakshin Kumar – *Court Observation:* The case is listed for pronouncing orders.
- National Green Tribunal (NGT)* – *Bench:* Not specified – *Parties:* J. Brezhnev vs. Union Ministry of Environment and 7 Others – *Date of Order:* Not specified – *Counsel:* – Petitioner: M/s. S. Tamil Selvan, R.S. Selva, P. Praveen, Samadhanam S. Prasath – Respondents: – R1: M/s. Dr. G. Babu (CG SR PC) – R2: A. Edwin Prabhakar (State Govt. Pleader) – R3: Smt. P. Veena Suresh (Standing Counsel) – R4-R7: K. Karthik Jagannath (Govt.) – *Court Observation:* The case is listed with appearances from various counsel for the respondents.
More
Recent Posts
- : *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
- Hon’ble Supreme Court has refused the plea to extend the deadline for uploading Waqf property details on the UMEED Portal, reaffirming that 5 December 2025 remains the final date. As Minister of Minority Affairs, I have received several requests from Waqf Boards and stakeholders seeking an extension. For any grievance or issue related to Waqf properties, the UMEED Act provides a clear remedial mechanism, stakeholders may approach the Waqf Tribunal as prescribed under the law. The Ministry remains committed to transparency, accountability, and strengthening Waqf management across the country.
- *Madras High Court* – *Judge:* Justice N Senthil Kumar – *Parties:* – Mythri Movie Makers vs. Ilaiyaraaja – Dr. Ilaiyaraaja vs. Mythri Movie Makers and 2 Others – *Date of Order:* Not specified – *Counsel:* – Mythri Movie Makers: M/s. Rahul Balakrishnan – Dr. Ilaiyaraaja: M/s. Thyagarajan K, A. Saravanan, S. Magaimairaaj – Respondents: M/s. Jidesh Kumar, Navod Prasannan, Vijay R Sekar, Akalya Ravichandran, G. Lakshmi Prathista Reddy, RV. Che Guvera, Dhakshin Kumar – *Court Observation:* The case is listed for pronouncing orders.
- National Green Tribunal (NGT)* – *Bench:* Not specified – *Parties:* J. Brezhnev vs. Union Ministry of Environment and 7 Others – *Date of Order:* Not specified – *Counsel:* – Petitioner: M/s. S. Tamil Selvan, R.S. Selva, P. Praveen, Samadhanam S. Prasath – Respondents: – R1: M/s. Dr. G. Babu (CG SR PC) – R2: A. Edwin Prabhakar (State Govt. Pleader) – R3: Smt. P. Veena Suresh (Standing Counsel) – R4-R7: K. Karthik Jagannath (Govt.) – *Court Observation:* The case is listed with appearances from various counsel for the respondents.