Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (3.47 seconds)
Documents citing Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors Chief ... on 13 November, 2019

The International Association For ... vs Union Of India on 12 February, 2021

9. By virtue of the provisions of Part XIV of the Finance Act 2017, 25 (twenty- five) central enactments were amended so that, from the appointed date, firstly, 5 provisions relating to terms and conditions of service of the members of those tribunals were substituted with provisions allowing the Central Government to specify the same with rules under the Finance Act. Secondly, eight existing tribunals established under different legislations (specified in the Ninth Schedule) were abolished and their respective jurisdictions and powers were incorporated into seven existing tribunals, reducing the number of tribunals from 26 to19. Thirdly, under Section 184 of the Finance Act, the Central Government was authorized to frame delegated legislation (rules) spelling out the eligibility criteria, selection process, removal, salaries and allowances, tenure and other terms and conditions of service for the remaining 19 tribunals (specified in the Eighth Schedule). The constitutional validity of Section 184 and the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience & Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 Rules (hereafter “the 2017 Rules”) was considered in a batch of writ petitions and appeals, of which judgment was rendered in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra).The judgment, delivered by a bench of five judges, upheld Section 184. However, the 2017 Rules were held to be contrary to the constitutional scheme as interpreted by several previous rulings of Constitution Benches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - L N Rao - Full Document

Dinkar Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 2024

(Emphasis supplied) 10.4. The question of statutory provisions providing direct statutory appeals from tribunals to the Supreme Court, directly arose for consideration before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.11. In the said judgment the Supreme Court framed Issue No. VII and deliberated on this issue in detail wherein at paragraph 200 the Supreme Court took note of the non-exhaustive list of statutes, which provide direct appeals to Supreme Court. The provisions challenged by the Petitioners in 11 (2020) 6 SCC 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2844/2014 Page 14 of 19 By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:19.03.2024 16:18:21 this PIL are enlisted in the said paragraph no. 200. 10.5. The Supreme Court noted that the statutory provision of direct appeals had created undesirable and avoidable anomalies. The Supreme Court, however, did not strike down the said appeal provisions as unconstitutional and instead issued direction to the Union of India to consult the Law Commission of India to revisit the said provisions under various enactments providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court and to instead provide appeal to the Division Benches of High Court, if necessary. In its deliberations, the Supreme Court reiterated that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, being part of the basic structure remains intact and orders passed by the tribunals remain amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - M P Arora - Full Document

M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2024

67. The necessity to ensure that the mechanism established as an alternative forum of dispute resolution should be equally effective, competent and accessible is emphasized in the aforesaid paragraphs. The observations made in paragraphs 386 and 391 of Rojer Mathew (supra) are also of direct relevance to us, wherein it has been held that having tribunals without Circuit Benches in at least the capitals of the States and Union Territories amounts to denial of justice to the citizens of these regions and it makes the justice delivery system very metropolis-centric. Moreover, it also deprives the Bench and Bar in smaller districts and capitals of smaller States of handling such cases, apart from making it expensive for litigants. The Paragraphs 386 and 391 of Rojer Mathew‟s case (supra) for easy reference are quoted herein below:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - N K Singh - Full Document

Brijlal Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2020

were to continue to pass orders disregarding the law laid down by the High Courts, the same would result in chaos, with petitions under Article 226 being filed in the High Courts terming such orders of the AFT as patently illegal and would defeat the principle of stare decisis and purpose of tribunalisation i.e. of expeditious disposal of disputes of personnel of the Armed Forces.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 97 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Lt Col Bharat Singh, Sena Medal vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 May, 2026

In Rojer Mathew (supra) judgment, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Article 226 of the Constitution does not restrict writ jurisdiction of High Courts over the Armed Forces Tribunal observing the same can neither be tampered with nor diluted. Instead, the Supreme Court has held that High Court's jurisdiction has to be zealously protected and cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2024

67. The necessity to ensure that the mechanism established as an alternative forum of dispute resolution should be equally effective, competent and accessible is emphasized in the aforesaid paragraphs. The observations made in paragraphs 386 and 391 of Rojer Mathew (supra) are also of direct relevance to us, wherein it has been held that having tribunals without Circuit Benches in at least the capitals of the States and Union Territories amounts to denial of justice to the citizens of these regions and it makes the justice delivery system very metropolis-centric. Moreover, it also deprives the Bench and Bar in smaller districts and capitals of smaller States of handling such cases, apart from making it expensive for litigants. The Paragraphs 386 and 391 of Rojer Mathew‟s case (supra) for easy reference are quoted herein below:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - N K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next