B. R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Madras Bar Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional supremacy and separation of powers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. provisions of the impugned act concerning tribunals. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. arguments against the impugned act's provisions. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. tribunal structure and independence. (Para 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. judicial independence and procedural fairness required. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. repeated failures and recommendations for tribunal reforms. (Para 42 , 78 , 79) |
| 7. legislative actions invalidated due to circumventing court rulings. (Para 135 , 136 , 140) |
| 8. establishment of national tribunals commission and protection of previous appointments. (Para 153 , 154 , 156) |
JUDGMENT
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | THE CHALLENGE |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS |
| IV. | THE TRIBUNALS JURISPRUDENCE |
| (i) S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Others | |
| (ii) R.K. Jain v. Union of India | |
| (iii) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others | |
| (iv) Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association | |
| (v) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| (vi) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| (vii) Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited Rep | |
Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and Others
M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India and Others
K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Others
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others
Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 [Para 44]
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited Represented by its Chief Manager and Others
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
S.R. Bhagwat and Others v. State of Mysore
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.