Gokul Patnaik vs. Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue)

\2323 1

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 267/2012 MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH SLP(C) No. 35248/2012 (With appln.(s) for substitution and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 1072/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for amendment of the petition and appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 7219/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c and appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c and Interim Relief) Date : 18/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) MR. Arvind P.Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Ms. Akansha, Adv. Signature Not Verified Mr. N.Sai, Adv. Digitally signed by Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Shashi Sareen Date: 2015.02.19 07:33:00 IST Reason: Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. 2 For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, AG, Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Srivastava, adv. Ms. V.Mohana, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur,Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Mr. Gopal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman, Adv. MS. Neha Meena, Adv. MS. Madhurina Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Hemendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sonal Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv M.Brahma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Constitutional validity of Parts I-B and I-C of The Companies Act 1956 inserted by Companies Second Amendment Act of 2002 was examined by a Constitution Bench in Union of India Vs. R.Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association 2010 (11) SCC 1 The operative part of the order passed in the said case was to the following effect:

"We, therefore dispose of these appeals, partly allowing them, as follows:

i) We uphold the decision of the High Court that the creation of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and vesting in them, the pwoers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in regard to company law matters, are not unconstitutional.

3

ii) We declare tht Parts I-B and I-C of the Act as presently structures, are unconstituional for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph. However, Parts I-B and I-C of the Act, may be made operational by making suitable amendments, as indicated above, in addition to what the Union Government has alrady agreed to in pursuance of the impugned order of the High Court."

petitioner-association in Writ Petition (C) No. 1072 of 2013 as ammended. In conencted Writ Petition (C) No. 267 of 2012 the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing implementaion of the directions issued by the Cosntitution Bench in R.Gandhi's case supra.

Having heard Mr. Arvind P.Datar, learned senior counsel and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learend A.G. at some length we are of the view that substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the provisions of the constitution falls for determination. That apart since an analogous challenge in the earlier round of litigation 4

had been examined by a Constitution Bench of this Court, we see no reason why the present writ petitions should also not be referred to a larger Bench for an authoratative pronouncement on the questions that have been raised. We accordingly refer these writ petitions to be placed before a Constitution Bench for final hearing and disposal. Additional paper books shall be filed by the petitioners within two weeks. The papers shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.

SLP(C) Nos. 7219 of 2014 and 35248 of 2012:

De-tagged. To be listed separately after four weeks.

(Shashi Sareen) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master