Tribunal Decisions Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court: Supreme Court

Published by Admin on

Tribunal Decisions Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court

Case: Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay

Coram: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Case No.: Civil Appeal No.197 Of 2022

Court Observation: “The power vested in the High Court to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within the respective jurisdictions is a part of the basic structure of the constitution. Decisions of Tribunals would be subjected to the High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction under A.226/227 of the Constitution, before a division bench of High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular tribunal falls.”

“When once a Constitution Bench of this court declared the law that “all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls”

“The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking another view would undoubtedly result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question especially in cases involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi”.

“this unambiguous exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while deciding the jurisdictional High Court to bring in challenge against an order of transfer of an original application from one bench of Tribunal to another bench.” “perfectly understood and treated the order impugned before it in the writ petition as an order passed by the Principal Bench of the tribunal at New Delhi” and thus, the High Court should have confined its consideration to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over this order.”

Previous Posts

Fire Accident Can’t Be Termed ‘Act Of God’ If It Did Not Happen Due To External Natural Forces: Supreme Court

Section 34 CPC – Award Of Pendente Lite Interest A Discretionary Remedy: Supreme Court

Section 5 Limitation Act Cannot Be Invoked To Condone Delay Beyond Period Prescribed U/Sec 34(3) Arbitration Act: Supreme Court

Employee Has No Absolute Right To Be Represented In Departmental Proceedings Through Agent Of His Choice: Supreme Court

Acquittal In A Criminal Trial Has No Bearing Or Relevance On The Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court

First Appellate Court Should Deal With All Issues And Evidence And Follow Procedure Under CPC: Supreme Court Download Judgement


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Hey, wait!

Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates about our events, blogs and various opportunities.