Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1258

RANJAN GOGOI, N. V. RAMANA, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
Rojer Mathew – Appellant
Versus
South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):V. K. Verma, Ruchira Goel, Muhammad Ali Khan, Abishek Jebraj, Omar Hoda, Namrah Nasir, Nikhil Swami, Sparsh Prasad, Anand Varma, Ashok Kumar Panda, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Satyabrata Panda, Manoranjan Paikaray, Anineddha urushotham, Jagdish Kumar Chawla, V.P. Gupta, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Annam D. N. Rao, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Rupesh Kumar, Renjith B. Marar, Kumar Gaurav, Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Ritu Reniwal, Mahendra Kumawat, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Diksha Rai, Ishan Bisht, Palak Mahajan, Rajiv Shukla, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Gorang Goyal, Shivani Kapoor, Sidharth Luthra, Alok Dhir, Maneesha Dhir, Sachin Gupta, Ashu Kansal, Karan Batura, Anushree Prashit Kapadia, K. Krishna Kumar, Archana Pathak Dave, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):K.K. Venugopal, AG Tushar Mehta, SG Madhavi Divan, ASG R. Balasubramanian, Zoheb Hossain, Shraddha Deshmukh, Binu Tamta, Piyush Goyal, Vivek Gurnani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajat Nair, Kanu Agrawal, Manan Popli, Rajeev Ranjan, Shantanu Sharma, Varun Chugh, Buhwan Kapoor, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raj Bahadur Yadav, P. I. Jose, Harikumar V., Ashok Mathur, Ajay Veer Singh, Uday Ram Bokadir, Sonal Jain, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, E. C. Agrawala, M/s. Saharya & Co. Diksha Rai, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Veena Bansal, K.S. Namdar, hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Anika Nissar Sayyed, for A.S. Sayeed, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Shashi Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case separately, a brief reference is being made, illustratively, to the prayers made in three matters to aid the formulation of core issues arising for adjudication.

3. The Madras Bar Association has preferred Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs:

“i. A writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India, to implement the directions of this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi [(2010) 11 SCC 1, para 96 at pg. 310] and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], paras 120 and 121 at page 65 to 67], where Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. Of India was ordered to take over the administration of all tribunals created by Parliament and streamline the functioning of the same.

ii. A writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Law & Justice to promptly carry out a ‘Judi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1258

RANJAN GOGOI, N. V. RAMANA, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNARojer Mathew – AppellantVersusSouth Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (78)

RANJAN GOGOI, N. V. RAMANA, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
Rojer Mathew – Appellant
Versus
South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent