2007(5) Supreme 227
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., D.K. Jain & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Union of India — Petitioner
versus
R. Gandhi — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 3067 of 2004
with
Appeal (civil) 3717 of 2005
Decided on : 18-05-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Gopal Subramanium, ASG., Navin Prakash, Gaurav Agrawal, T. Srinivasa Murthy and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv., Ankit Singhal and Nikhil Nayyar, Advocates.
(1997) 3 SCC 261; (2002) 4 SCC 275; (2003) 2 SCC 412 – Referred to.
Facts of the case :
The amendment in Companies Act, 1956 providing for constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and transfer of all jurisdiction relating thereto from High Courts to these Tribunals are under challenge.
Findings of the Court :
There is as yet no demarcating line to show that, except for powers exercised under Article 226 & 227, the Parliament has the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions, traditionally performed by Courts in any Tribunal or Authority, outside the judiciary. The question whether such ‘wholesale transfer of powers’ would offend the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, so as to aggrandize one branch over the other needs to be given a fresh look and therefore, the matter deserves to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
ORDER
1.The challenge in these appeals is to the validity of the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 as amended by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, which provides for setting up of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Barring the jurisdiction exercised under Articles 226 and 227, almost all jurisdictions hitherto exercised by the High Courts in regard to the company matters would be transferred and exercised by the proposed Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.
2.We have heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. A.P. Datar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Madras Bar Association, at some length.
3.Law relating to the legislative competence to establish Tribunals has been enunciated in several judgments of this court, including L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.,1 (1997) 3 SCC 261; Union of India & Anr. Vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors.,2 (2002) 4 SCC 275 and State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors.,3 (2003) 2 SCC 412. It has been held that under Entries 77, 78, 95 of List I, Entry 65 of List II and Entry 11A of List III, the Parliament and State Legislatures possess legislative competence to effect changes in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
4.However, in none of the decisions rendered so far the question as to what extent such powers of High Court can be transferred to Tribunals, excepting judicial review under Articles 226/227 has not been considered. There is as yet no demarcating line to show that, except for powers exercised under Article 226 & 227, the Parliament has the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions, traditionally performed by Courts in any Tribunal or Authority, outside the judiciary. The question to be determined is whether such ‘wholesale transfer of powers’ as contemplated by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 would offend the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, so as to aggrandize one branch over the other.
5.Since the issues raised in the appeals are of seminal importance and are likely to have serious impact on the very structure and independence of the judicial system, we are of the view that the issue with regard to the constitution of the Tribunals and the areas of their jurisdiction needs to be given a fresh look and therefore, the matter deserves to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
***********
State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors
Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors.
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.