SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 936

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir & Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.

Ram Jethmalani & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
I.A. No. 8 of 2011 In Writ Petition (C) No. 176 of 2009
Decided On : 23 September, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Mr. H.P. Raval, ASG, Mr. J.S. Attri and Mr. Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Pranav Deish, Mr. S. Patnaik, Mr. Arjun Mahajan (for M/s Karanjawala & Co.), Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Mr. Devadatt Kamath, Mr. Anoopam N. Prasad, Ms. Naila Jung, Mr. Nishanth Patil, Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Mr. H.S. Parihar, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair (AOR), M/s. K.J. John & Co., Ms. Arti Singh, Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Namrata Sood, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mrs. Anuradha Mutatkar, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Mr. Santosh Paul, Mr. Arvind Gupta, Mr. Rajiv Nanda and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates, with them, for the appearing parties.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 142 r/w Order 47 Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – I.A. in disposed of writ petition – Supreme Court has powers to do complete justice and justice transcends all barriers and neither rules of procedure nor technicalities can stand in its way, particularly if its implementation would result in injustice – Maintaining credibility of ongoing investigation – Concept of continuing mandamus – Court can extend benefit of its judgment even to persons who were not in appeal before it – Even if the present application is held not maintainable, it would not preclude Applicants from filing a review application under Article 137 – Working of the Special Investigation Team appointed under the order of 4th July, 2011, in question – Removing technical barriers and in view of inherent powers preserved in Order 47 Rule 6 and having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, held, I.A. No.8 of 2011, even in its present form is maintainable. (Para 14 to 18)

       JT 1988 (2) SC 408 : (1988) 2 SCC 602; JT 1993 (4) SC 27 : 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 595; JT 1996 (1) SC 708; JT 1991 (1) SC 47 : 1991 (Suppl. 2) SCC 465 – Relied upon

       (2004) 8 SCC 610; JT 2005 (5) SC 491 : (2005) 5 SCC 517; JT 2011 (3) SC 613; JT 2004 (Suppl.1) SC 578 : 2004 (5) SCC 618; 1965 (2) SCR 800 – Referred

       Per Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 137 r/w Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Application for clarification/modification touching the merits of the matter may be permissible, if at all, in a review petition – Procedure laid down in Order XL r/w Article 137 have to be followed – Such application under Article 142 r/w Order XLVII rue 6 – Not maintainable. (Para 26)

       JT 2004 (6) SC 93 : 2004 (12) SCC 713; JT 2000 (9) SC 245 : 2000 (7) SCC 296 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 142 r/w Order 47 rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1966 – IA filed for clarification/modification of order in IA No. 1 of 2009 – More in the nature of a Memorandum of Appeal – Seeking to reopen the whole matter on merits – Not permissible – Application not maintainable. (Para 24, 32)

       JT 2004 (6) SC 93 : (2004) 12 SCC 713; JT 2000 (9) SC 245 : (2000) 7 SCC 296; JT 2004 (Suppl.2) SC 143 : (2004) 5 SCC 353; JT 2007 (2) SC 532 : (2007) 2 SCC 466 – Relied upon

       JT 1993 (4) SC 27 : 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 595; JT 1988 (2) SC 408 : (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       Writ Petition (Civil) No.176 of 2009 was filed by Shri Ram Jethmalani and five others against the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities Exchange Board of India, the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, against the purported inaction of the Government to arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by Indian citizens in foreign banks and, in particular, in Swiss Banks.

       The petition and IA 1 was disposed of.

       This IA has been filed for modification in the directions given in IA 1.

       Finding of the Court:

       The two Hon’ble Judges differed n their views on maintainability of the application in its present form.

       Result:

       Matter referred to larger Bench.

JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Writ Petition (Civil) No.176 of 2009 was filed by Shri Ram Jethmalani and five others against the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities Exchange Board of India, the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, against the purported inaction of the Government to arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by Indian citizens in foreign banks and, in particular, in Swiss Banks. In that context the Petitioners, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

'(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue notice to all the Respondents calling upon them to disclose all the facts which have come to their knowledge so far pertaining to the aforementioned issues and the steps taken by them in this regard;

(b) to make orders from time to time to ensure that the outcome of the investigations are not suppressed or even unduly delayed;

(c) the suitable directions be issued to the Respondent No.1 to apply to the Foreign Banks, more particularly the UBS Bank for freezing the amounts in the said foreign banks, particularly, the UBS Bank which as stated above is holding, inter alia, the Khan and Tapurias' assets.'

2. On 4th July, 2011, on I.A. No.1 of 2009 in the Writ Petition several directions were given. In fact, the said order was divided into three parts. The first part of the order dealt with the alleged failure of the Central Government to recover the large sums of money kept in such foreign banks and in tax havens having strong secrecy laws with regard to deposits made by individuals. The second part dealt with the unlawful activities allegedly funded out of such deposits and accounts which were a threat to the security and integrity of India. The amounts deposited in such tax havens in respect of one Shri Hassan Ali Khan and Shri Kashinath Tapuria and his wife Chandrika Tapuria were alleged to be in billions of dollars in UBS Bank in Zurich alone. Income Tax demands were made to Shri Hassan Ali Khan for Rs.40,000 crores and a similar demand was served on the Tapurias amounting to Rs.20,580 crores. On being convinced that, in the absence of any known source of income, the large sums of money involved in the various transactions by Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias were the proceeds of crime, which required a thorough investigation, this Court felt the necessity of appointing a Special Investigation Team to act on behalf and at the behest of the directions of this Court. It was noted by this Court that the issues involved were complex and would require expertise and knowledge of different departments and the coordination of efforts between various agencies and departments. It was also recorded that on behalf of the Union of India, it had been submitted that a High Level Committee had recently been formed under the initiative of the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, composed of:

(i) Secretary, Department of Revenue, as the Chairman;

(ii) Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India;

(iii) Director (IB);

(iv) Director, Enforcement;

(v) Director, CBI;

(vi) Chairman, CBDT;

(vii) DG, Narcotics Control Bureau;

(viii) DG, Revenue Intelligence;

(ix) Director, Financial Intelligence Unit; and

(x) JS(FT & TR-I), CBDT.

with powers to co-opt, as necessary, representatives not below the rank of Joint Secretary such as the Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and the Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. It was further recorded that the Union of India had claimed that such a multi-disciplinary group and committee would enable the conducting of an efficient and a systematic investigation into the matters concerning allegations against Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias and would also be able to take appropriate steps to bring back the monies deposited in foreign banks. In the light of such submission made on behalf of Union of India and citing the judgments of this Court in (1)









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top