- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Sets Up Five Judges Constitution Bench to Hear Important Matters
Supreme Court Sets Up Five Judges Constitution Bench to Hear Important Matters
The Supreme Court has set up a fresh five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud to hear significant cases from July 12.
Besides the CJI, the Constitution bench would include Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, according to a notice issued by the assistant registrar (listing) of Apex Court.
The bench is set to consider the following cases:
1. Tej Prakash and others vs. Rajasthan High Court
The Apex Court is expected to deal with a legal question-
“Whether the state instrumentalities can change eligibility rules after a selection process for a public employment has begun.”
In September, the matter was listed before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee and after her retirement, a fresh bench was set up.
2. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company and JSW Steel Limited vs. South Western Railway
The legal issue involved in this matter is:
“Whether a person, who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, can appoint an arbitrator.”
In the case of In JSW Steel Limited vs. South Western Railway & Anr, the three judges bench led by the then CJI UU Lalit noted that the view taken by a two-judge bench in Central Organization for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, was doubted by the three judges bench led by Justice Nariman in January 2021 in the case Union of India vs. Tantia Constructions.
Noting the issue being re-occurring the bench in JSW Steel also referred the matter to three-judges bench.
3. M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rambha Devi & Ors
The issue involved in this case pertains as to:
“Whether a person holding a driving license in respect of ‘light motor vehicle’, could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg?”
The three judges bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, in March 2022, doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench A 3-judge Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, in March 2022, doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench in the case Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017).
The three judge’s bench had held that a person holding a driving license in respect of ‘light motor vehicle,’ could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class,’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.
Other matters will also be taken up by the newly set up Constitution bench subsequently.