REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

S.P.GUPTA Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GODDE VENKATESWARE RAO V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P [FOLLOWED]
BARIUM CHEMICALS LTD. V. COMPANY LAW BOARD [DISTINGUISHED]
A K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS OPPOSITE PARTY; UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]
COMISSIONER OF POLICE BOMBAY VS. GORDHANDAS BHANJI [DISTINGUISHED]
NALINAKHYA VS. SHYAM SUNDER HALDAR [RELIED ON]
DWARKADAS SHRINIVAS VS. SHOLAPUR SPINNING AND WEAVING COMPANY LIMITED [RELIED ON]
SEWA SINGH VS. JANGIR SINGH [RELIED ON]
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [FOLLOWED]
KANAI LAL SUR VS. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA VS. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVAITAVA:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DISTINGUISHED]
SEWPUJANRAI INDRASANARAI LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [DISTINGUISHED]
RAM RAM NARAIN MEDHI BHASKAR VINAYAK TENDULKAR PANDURANG GANPAT RAMCHANDRA LAXMAN BALWANT OAK KUBERDAS HARGOVINDDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [RELIED ON]
Y MAHABOOB SHERIFF AND SONS Y MAHABOOB SHERIFT S SHAMSODDIN VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE:MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE:MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE [DISTINGUISHED]
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SODHA SULCHDEV SINGH [OVERRULED]
M V JOSHI VS. M U SHIMPI [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BARODA VS. DIGVIJAYSINHJI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD [RELIED ON]
JAYANTILAL AMRATLAL SHODHAN VS. F N RANA [EXPLAINED AND DISTINGUISHED]
AFNAR CHAND BUTAIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]
STETE OF GUJAIAT VS. SHYAARIAL MOHANLAL CHOKSIMANUBHAI PATEL [RELIED ON]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NRIPENDRA NATH BAGEHI [FOLLOWED]
CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [RELIED ON]
HANSRAJ GORDHANDAS VS. H H DAVE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SURAT [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES VS. S D AGARWAL [DISTINGUISHED]
CHANDRAMOULESHWAR PRASAD VS. PATNA HIGH COURT [FOLLOWED]
A SANJEEVI NAIDU VS. STATE OF MADRAS [FOLLOWED]
ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI VS. H M SEERVAI ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY^ [RELIED ON]
SARDARI LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [EXPLAINED AND DISTINGUISHED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSAM AND NAGALAND VS. G HYATT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER [DISTINGUISHED]
U N R RAO VS. INDIRA GANDHI [FOLLOWED]
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT R M S COCHIN VS. K V GOPINATH SORTER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT VS. VADILAL LALLUBHAI :SAKARLAL BALABHAI [RELIED ON]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. R V BIDAP [RELIED ON]
KRISHANGOPAL VS. PRAKASHCHANDRA [DISTINGUISHED]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [RELIED ON]
FAGU SHAW VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMBICA MILLS LTD [DISTINGUISHED]
K RAMADAS SHENOY VS. CHIEF OFFICERS TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDIPI [RELIED ON]
SAMSHER SINGH ISHWAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UMED VS. RAJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAJ NARAIN [RELIED ON]
ANANDJI HARIDAS AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH [REFERRED TO]
BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA VS. M V DABHOLKAR [RELIED ON]
SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE [RELIED ON]
JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI VS. ROSHAN KUMAR HAJI BASHIR AHMED [RELIED ON]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. PYARE LAL MALHOTRA [RELIED ON]
MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA BOMBAY VS. ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI [EXPLAINED]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATE OF PUNJAB VS. UNION OF INDIA [FOLLOWED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKALGHAND HIMATLAL SHETH [FOLLOWED]
POLESTAR ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED UNION OF INDIA DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED BLUE STAR LIMITED DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED DEEPAK OIL MILLS DEEPAK OIL MILLS TRADING ENGINEERS DEEPAK OIL MILLS KRISHAN VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SALES TAX: J K SYNTHETICS LTD [RELIED ON]
MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [FOLLOWED]
DADAJI ALIAS DINA VS. SUKHDEOBABU [RELIED ON]
SUN II BATRA II VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [RELIED ON]
JAISINGH JAIRAM TYAGI VS. MAMANGHAND RATILAL AGARWAL [RELIED ON]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RATLAM VS. VARDICHAN [RELIED ON]
V B RAJU VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION REGD SINDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgments of the Court were delivered by

(2.) THESE Writ Petition filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139-A of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty-five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution. Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these Writ Petition. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of this kind, that a considerable amount of passion has been injected into the arguments on both sides and some times passion may appear to lend strength to an argument, but, sitting as Judges, we have to be careful to see that passion does not blind us to logic and predilections pervert proper interpretation of the constitutional provisions. We have to examine the arguments objectively and dispassionately without being swayed by populist approach or sentimental appeal. It is very easy for the human mind to find justification for a conclusion which accords with the dictates of emotion. Reason is a ready enough advocate for the decision one, consciously or unconsciously, desires to reach. I will recall the brilliant fling of Shri Aurobindo in his poem "Savitri" :

(3.) THE third writ petition is that filed by J. L. Kalra and others in the High Court of Delhi. THE petitioners in this writ petition are advocates practising in the Delhi High Court and they have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the central government to make an assessment of the number of permanent and Additional Judges required by the Delhi High Court having regard to its current business and the accumulated arrears, to create such number of posts of permanent and Additional Judges as may be necessary and to make appointments to these posts. THE other reliefs asked for in this writ petition are substantially the same as the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition filed by V. M. Tarkunde. This writ petition was also like the other Writ Petition withdrawn and transferred to itself by this Court. Since the issues arising in this writ petition are identical with the issues arising in the other two writ petitions, it was heard by this bench of seven Judges along with those Writ Petition.

Click here to view full judgment.

S P GUPTA V M TARKUNDE J L KALRA IQBAL M CHAGLA MISS LILY THOMAS A RAJAPPA UNION OF INDIA D N PANDEY R PRASAD SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address