Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 352 (4.91 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors on 14 March, 2002

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2020

43. As we have already held that Advocates are entitled to be considered as judicial members of the Tribunals, we see no harm in members of the Indian Legal Service being considered as judicial members, provided they satisfy the criteria relating to the standing at the bar and specialization required. The judgment of Union of 48 | P a g e India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) (supra) did not take note of the above points relating to the experience of members of Indian Legal Service at the bar. The Indian Legal Service was considered along with the other civil services for the purpose of holding that the members of Indian Legal Service are entitled to be appointed only as technical members. In the light of the submission made by the learned Attorney General and the Amicus Curiae, we hold that the members of Indian Legal Service shall be entitled to be considered for appointment as a judicial member subject to their fulfilling the other criteria which advocates are subjected to. In addition, the nature of work done by the members of the Indian Legal Service and their specialization in the relevant branches of law shall be considered by the Search-cum-Selection Committee while evaluating their candidature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - L N Rao - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2014

Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, the above proposition was declared by this Court in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association case (supra), wherein it was held, that the stature of the Members who would constitute the tribunal, would depend on the jurisdiction 231 which was being transferred to the tribunal. Accordingly, if the jurisdiction of the High Courts is being transferred to the NTT, the stature of the Members of the tribunal had to be akin to that of the judges of High Courts. So also the conditions of service of its Chairperson/Members. And the manner of their appointment and removal, including transfers. Including, the tenure of their appointments.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 355 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 September, 2014

70. We shall first deal with the first perspective, namely, whether constitutional interpretation in the manner accepted the world over, would be a constitutional mandate for appellate jurisdiction on tax matters, to remain with the jurisdictional High Court. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reliance was placed on judgments emerging out of the Constitutions of Jamaica, Ceylon, Australia and Canada, rendered either by the Privy Council or the highest Courts of the concerned countries. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was, that the constitutions of the above countries were based on the Westminster model. It was further pointed out, that the Indian Constitution was also based on the Westminster model, and that, the instant position stands recognized in the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association case (supra). Incidentally, it may be mentioned that we have extracted paragraph 101 of the above judgment hereinabove, wherein it is so recorded. It is accordingly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners on the instant aspect of the matter, would be fully applicable to the controversy in hand. Under the constitutional convention, adverted to in the judgments referred to on behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted, that judicial power which rested with definite courts at the time of enactment of the constitutions based on the Westminster model, had to remain with the same courts, even after the constitutions had become effective and operational. Furthermore, it was submitted, that the judicial power had to be exercised in the same manner as before, i.e., whether by a judge sitting singly, or with other judges. And therefore it was asserted, that on constitutional conventions well recognized the world over, appellate jurisdiction in respect of tax matters, would have to remain with the jurisdictional High Courts, and would have to be determined by a bench of at least two judges of the High Court, as was the position before the enactment of the Constitution, and, as has been the position thereafter, till the promulgation of the NTT Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 355 - Cited by 330 - J S Khehar - Full Document

R. Muthukumaraswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2014

From the perusal of the functions assigned to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, we are of the view that the adjudicatory power is very minimal to the State Commission when compared to National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. As stated supra, the orders of the State Commission are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal, which is to be headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court, serving or retired. The said judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010) 11 SCC 1 (Union of India v. Madras Bar Association) is referred in the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 (Union of India v. Namit Sharma) and distinguished the same and upheld the power of the Government in appointing persons other than sitting or retired Judges as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs).
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors Chief ... on 13 November, 2019

30. I am in respectful disagreement with the Chief Justice that the objects of the parent enactments and the law laid down by this Court in R. K. Jain v. Union of India9, L. Chandra Kumar (supra), Union of India v. Madras Bar Association10, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India11, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India12, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.13 in essence should be read as the guidelines. One would expect the Union Government to abide by the directions of this Court. However, this expectation has been belied by this very enactment which violates every principle of law laid down by this Court and, as held in the judgments of both my brothers, the Rules framed by the delegatee are violative of the law laid down by this Court. In this background, it is apparent that both the delegator and the delegatee felt that they were not bound by these judgments. This is also apparent from the fact that the Rules framed by the delegatee have not been brought in consonance with the law by the delegator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 260 - Cited by 69 - R Gogoi - Full Document

The Central Bank Of India vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 9 January, 2018

14. Upon examining the rival contentions, DRAT, Chennai, has rightly observed that there is no provision, enabling a person to examine his own witness, who has filed the affidavit. Though it was contended that a fraud committed by the Bank, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Bar Association's case (cited supra), it is always open to the petitioner to prove their case, by filing necessary documents, before the Tribunal and to cross-examine the bank witness, which in the instant case, has been done.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The Central Bank Of India vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 9 January, 2018

14. Upon examining the rival contentions, DRAT, Chennai, has rightly observed that there is no provision, enabling a person to examine his own witness, who has filed the affidavit. Though it was contended that a fraud committed by the Bank, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Bar Association's case (cited supra), it is always open to the petitioner to prove their case, by filing necessary documents, before the Tribunal and to cross-examine the bank witness, which in the instant case, has been done.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh Sodhi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 July, 2015

respondents and Union of India versus Delhi High Court Bar Association cases, these writ petitions would require to be dismissed, but regard being had to the special constitutional and legal position occupied by the State of J&K in the community of States of Union of India and in view of the constitutional and legal issues raised by learned counsel about the same, the applicability of some of the provisions of the Act of 2002, more particularly, section 13(1) and (4) thereof, has come under cloud.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 73 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tax Bar Association Pune Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 14 January, 2021

35. The 2020 Rules are not in compliance with the principles of law laid down in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) (supra) and Rojer Mathew (supra) in respect of the tenure of the members of the Tribunals in spite of this Court repeatedly holding that short tenure of members is detrimental to the efficiency and independence of the Tribunals. Rule 9(1) of the 2020 Rules provide for a term of four years or till a Chairman or Chairperson or President attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Union Of India vs R. Gandhi on 11 May, 2010

28. The legislative competence of Parliament to provide for creation of courts and Tribunals can be traced to Entries 77, 78, 79 and Entries 43, 44 read with Entry 95 of List I, Item 11A read with Entry 46 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Referring to these Articles, this Court in two cases, namely, Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association [2002 (4) SCC 275] and State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors. [2003 (2) SCC 412] held that Articles 323A and 323B are enabling provisions which enable the setting up of Tribunals contemplated therein; and that the said Articles, however, cannot be interpreted to mean that they prohibited the legislature from establishing Tribunals not covered by those Articles, as long as there is legislative competence under the appropriate Entry in the Seventh Schedule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 64 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next