Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Limited Judicial Review After Presidential Removal Order | Inquiry Committee Report Access | Grounds for Challenge</h1> <h3>Sarojini Ramaswami Versus Union of India</h3> Sarojini Ramaswami Versus Union of India - 1992 AIR 2219, 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 108, 1992 (4) SCC 506, 1992 (5) JT 1, 1992 (2) SCALE 257 Issues Involved:1. Judicial review availability and stage against Inquiry Committee findings u/s 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.2. Entitlement of the concerned Judge to a copy of the Inquiry Committee's report before submission to the Speaker.3. Applicability of the doctrine of lapse to the motion for removal of a Judge upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha.4. Justiciability of the Inquiry Committee's findings and the extent of judicial review.5. Whether the Inquiry Committee is a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Judicial Review Availability and Stage:The primary issue was whether judicial review is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted u/s 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and at what stage it can be sought. The petitioner argued that judicial review should be available before the report is submitted to the Speaker or laid before Parliament. The Court held that judicial review is available only after the President makes an order of removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. Judicial review at this stage ensures that the concerned Judge can challenge the findings of 'guilty' on permissible grounds.2. Entitlement to a Copy of the Report:The petitioner sought a direction for the Inquiry Committee to provide a copy of its report to the concerned Judge before submitting it to the Speaker. The Court concluded that the concerned Judge is not entitled to a copy of the report before it is submitted to the Speaker. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme does not provide for such a right, and the report becomes a parliamentary document only when laid before the House. The Court also noted that the concerned Judge would have an opportunity to present his case during the parliamentary process.3. Doctrine of Lapse:The issue of whether the motion for the removal of a Judge lapses upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha was addressed. The Court, following the precedent set in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, held that the motion does not lapse upon the dissolution of the House. The process for removal of a Judge is statutory until the report is laid before Parliament, and the doctrine of lapse does not apply at this stage.4. Justiciability and Extent of Judicial Review:The Court examined the extent to which the findings of the Inquiry Committee are subject to judicial review. It was held that the judicial review is limited to the legality of the findings and the process followed by the Committee. The Court emphasized that the findings of 'not guilty' are conclusive and not subject to further scrutiny, while the findings of 'guilty' can be challenged only after the President's order of removal.5. Inquiry Committee as a Tribunal:The petitioner argued that the Inquiry Committee is a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the Inquiry Committee, although a high judicial body, is not a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136. The Committee's findings are not final and conclusive but are subject to parliamentary consideration and action.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the concerned Judge is not entitled to a copy of the Inquiry Committee's report before it is submitted to the Speaker. Judicial review is available only after the President makes an order of removal under Article 124(4). The findings of 'not guilty' are conclusive and not subject to further scrutiny, while the findings of 'guilty' can be challenged on permissible grounds after the President's order. The Inquiry Committee is not considered a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found