Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
ITAT Appointment Rules: Persons selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years

The validity of the ‘Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience And Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017‘ has been challenged in the Supreme Court in Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279 of 2017).

The Supreme Court had earlier directed that pending the outcome of the challenge, the appointment of Members of the ITAT will be for a period of five years or till the maximum age that was fixed under the old Act and Rules.

The Supreme Court has now clarified the situation as follows:

“At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of superannuation.

We make it clear that the person selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.”

See also: Law Ministry Invites Applications For Appointment To Posts Of Judicial & Accountant Members In ITAT

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279/2017

KUDRAT SANDHU Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 640/2017 (X)
W.P.(C) No. 925/2017 (PIL-W)
(FOR ADMISSION)
W.P.(C) No. 33/2018 (PIL-W)
(FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 65011/2018)
W.P.(C) No. 205/2018 (X)
W.P.(C) No. 467/2018 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 16-07-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioner(s)

WP 33/2018 Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Adv.
Mr. Karan Batura, Adv.
Mr. Ashu Kansal, Adv.
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Adv.
WP 467/2018 Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, Adv.
Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, Adv.
Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR

WP 640/2017 Mr. A.K. Behera, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Verma, AOR
Ms. Priya Hingorani, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kripa Shanker Prasad, Adv.

WP 205/2018 Ms. Palak Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
Ms. Rhea Dube, Adv.

WP 925/2017 Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.

WP 279/2017 Mr. Arun Monga, Adv.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv.
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv.
Mr. Harish V. Shekhar, Adv.
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bhat, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Ajayveer Singh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Adv.
Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.
Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33/2018 submits that certain positions in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) have not yet been filled up though vacancies are there.

Mr. A.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 640/2017 submitted in respect of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that though the matter has reached the final stage, yet the persons have not yet been appointed.

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India assisted by Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel shall obtain instructions in this regard.

If any anomaly is there, it will be open to learned counsel to serve a copy of the same by way of a written statement to Mr. R. Balasubramanian, who in turn, may brief the learned Attorney General.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel shall also submit a statement in writing as regards the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), a copy of which shall be served on Mr. R. Balasubramanian.

At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of superannuation.

We make it clear that the person selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.

Let the matter be listed on 13.8.2018.

WP(C) No. 467/2018

Let this matter be listed alongwith Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279/2017.

(Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Assistant Registrar

One comment on “Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
  1. Shalabh Singh says:

    Its alarming that no Interveners seem to be present in this cause celebre matter for that woeful lack of Members in the NCLT(albeit COMPETENT ONES) and for the pathetic absence of Members at the DRT(of course the qualified ones)for taking up cases which may just burgeon in terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as applied to Individuals and Partnership Firms. And nowhere is a whisper of revolt against this new Tribunalisation(or is it trivilization) by introducing this Commercial Courts Act2015 which includes every lis of ‘commercial nature'(sic)which is all encompassing and the fresh new 2018 Ordinance thereof which ousts and not just stymies the powers of the CJ of the HC to make any appointments on the Bench constituted for the said avowed purposes of commercial courts .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top