Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15804 of 2017 | 16-05-2018

1. In continuation of Order dated 7th May, 2018, we have further heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, and learned amicus, Mr. Arvind P. Datar.

2. In terms of order dated 7th May, 2018, we direct that a committee be constituted. We, however, clarify that a former Judge of this Court need not have worked in a Tribunal as earlier directed.

3. We further direct that wherever qualification required for appointment to a Tribunal/Commission is of a former Chief Justice or a former Supreme Court Judge, and no suitable person of that category is available, it will be open to make appointment of any suitable former Judge of a High Court till any legislative amendment in that regard is brought out so that a Tribunal/Commission may not remain headless.

4. Subject to above, the constitution of the Committee is left to the Government. The Committee may be constituted within two months and may give its report within three months thereafter. Union of India may take a call thereon and take such further action as found appropriate. An affidavit of further developments be filed in this Court by 31st October, 2018. Learned amicus will be at liberty to put forward his view-point before the said Committee.

5. List again on 13th November, 2018 to consider any further direction.

6. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, we have not examined the merit of his grievance. We give him liberty to move the High Court again. The matter be considered by the High Court on its merit in accordance with law. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

7. If the Petitioner is aggrieved of the order which may be passed by the High Court, he will be at liberty to take his remedy in accordance with law including filing a petition in this Court.

Advocate List
  • For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Anubhav Anand Pandey, Krishnadas Villadath, Suchindran B.N., R. Chandrashekar, Renjith B. Marar, Advs., Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR

  • For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Venugopal, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Shraddha Deshmukh, Prabhas Bajaj, Advs., Anil Katiyar, P.I. Jose, AORs, P.S. Chandralekha, Shashank Mishra, Advs.

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUDGE A.K. GOEL
  • HON'BLE JUDGE INDU MALHOTRA
Eq Citations
  • (2018) 16 SCC 341
  • LQ/SC/2018/726
Head Note

Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Writ jurisdiction — Constitution of committee to examine matter and submit report — Clarified that a former Judge of Supreme Court need not have worked in a Tribunal — Further directed that wherever qualification required for appointment to a Tribunal/Commission is of a former Chief Justice or a former Supreme Court Judge, and no suitable person of that category is available, it will be open to make appointment of any suitable former Judge of a High Court till any legislative amendment in that regard is brought out so that a Tribunal/Commission may not remain headless — Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Tribunals, Tribunals and Other Authorities Acts