N. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India
AI Summary
This Supreme Court order addresses a miscellaneous application seeking modification of a previous judgment related to Employees' Provident Fund matters. The current two-judge bench referred the application to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a three-judge bench, deeming it appropriate for a bench of the same strength to reconsider its own prior judgment, ensuring judicial propriety.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
This miscellaneous application requests the modification of a final judgment issued by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2022, in W.P.(C) No. 874/2018. The original judgment was passed by a three-judge bench. The present application was listed before a two-judge bench.
Timeline of Events
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 874/2018 was filed.
Final judgment and order delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 874/2018.
Miscellaneous Application No. 2162/2022 seeking modification of the judgment was heard by a two-judge bench.
Key Factual Findings
The present application seeks modification of a judgment delivered by this Court on 4th November, 2022.
Source: Current Court Finding
The judgment delivered on 4th November, 2022, was by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
Source: Current Court Finding
A Bench of the same strength ought to deal with this application.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners are seeking modification/clarification of a prior judgment, implying they believe there is an error or ambiguity in the previous order that needs to be addressed.
Respondent's Arguments
While not explicitly stated, respondents would likely defend the original judgment or oppose modifications that are not merely clarificatory.
Court's Reasoning
The Court reasoned that an application seeking modification of a judgment delivered by a three-judge bench ought to be dealt with by a bench of the same strength to ensure judicial propriety and consistency. Therefore, they referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions regarding bench constitution.
- Strict Adherence to Procedure
- Emphasis on Judicial Hierarchy and Propriety
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Matter to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions as a Bench of the same strength (three judges) ought to deal with the application for modification of judgment.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order primarily deals with a procedural direction for bench constitution and does not lay down a substantive legal principle of general applicability, though it reinforces principles of judicial propriety.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 2162/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 874/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-11-2022 in W.P.(C) No. No. 874/2018 passed by the Supreme Court Of India)
ASSOCIATION OF FORMER EXECUTIVES OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD (HALE) & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.194149/2022-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION )
Date : 16-12-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.<br>Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR<br>Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv.<br>Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Adv. |
|---|---|
| Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv.<br>Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR | |
| For Respondent(s) | Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG<br>Mr. Siddharth, AOR<br>Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal, Adv. |
| Mr. Tabrez Malawat, Adv.<br>Mr. Sourajit Sarkar, Adv.<br>Mr. Syed Hamza, adv.<br>Ms. Sarita Verma, Adv.<br>Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv.<br>Mr. V.K. shukla, Adv.<br>Mr. S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Adv.<br>Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.<br>Ms. Riya Soni, Adv.<br>Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv.<br>Mr. Anand Kumar Singh,, Adv.<br>Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR |
Mr. Vikranjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singhania, Adv. Mr. Atul Dong, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The present application is for modification of a judgment delivered by this Court on 4th November, 2022 by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court. We are of the view that a Bench of the same strength ought to deal with this application, subject to the decision of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
Let the matter be placed before His Lordship The Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
(JATINDER KAUR) (VIDYA NEGI) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR