R. M. LODHA, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, A. K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Madras Bar Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgment :-
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
The Controversy:
1. All the above cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue which arises for consideration before us, in the present bunch of cases, pertains to the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the NTT Act). Simultaneously, the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 has been assailed, by asserting, that the same violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as, the Constitution), by impinging on the power of “judicial review” vested in the High Court. In the event of this Court not acceding to the aforementioned prayers, a challenge in the alternative, has been raised to various provisions of the NTT Act, which has led to the constitution of the National Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, the NTT). The NTT, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is styled as a quasi-judicial appellate tribunal. It has been vested with the power of adjudicating appeals arising from orders
State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himmatlal Sheth
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India
Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
Subhash Sharma v. Union of India
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India
Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Administration Services
State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. The Collector of Customs
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India
L. Chandra Kumar v.Union of India
Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1 – Distinguished [Para 28]
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v. Mollison
State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Association
Premier Automobiles v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke
Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pilai
Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India
Navinchandra Mafatlal, Bombay v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City
Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India
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.