RAM JETHMALANI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 23-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 63 
RAM JETHMALANI & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(I.A. 8 of 2011 in WP No. 176 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
CONST/TU/ON OF /NOIA, 1950: 
A 
8 
Article 142 read with 0. 47 r. 6 of Supreme Court Rules, C 
1966 - Unaccounted moneys of Indian citizens in foreign 
banks - Order dated 4. 7. 2011 passed by Supreme Court 
directing the High Level Committee constituted by Central 
Government to be appointed as Special Investigation Team 
including Director, Research and Analysis Wing therein and o 
to be headed by two retired Judges of Supreme Court as its 
Chairman and Vice-Chairman - I.A. filed by Union of India 
seeking modification of the order dated 4. 7. 2011 -
Maintainability of - In view of difference of opinion regarding 
maintainability of the I.A., the matter referred to larger Bench E 
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 47, r6. 
Saurav Chaudhary v. Union of India 2004 (2 ) Suppl. 
SCR 611 = (2004) 5 SCC 618; Raja Soap Factory & Ors. v. 
S.P. Shantharaj & Ors. (1965) 2 SCR 800; A. R. Antulay v. 
R. S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1988) 2 SCC 
F 
602; S. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 1993 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 1 = (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 595; Manganese 
Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha 1990 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 
533 =; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors. 2004 (12) 
SCC 713; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. G 
2000 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 496 = 2000 (7) SCC 296; Zahira 
Habibul/ah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2004 (2 ) 
Suppl. SCR 571 
::::; 2004 (5) sec 353; A. P. SRTC & Ors. 
63 
H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
v. Abdul Kareem 2007 (1 ) SCR 888 = 2007 (2) SCC 466 -
referred to 
S. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of Kamataka & Anr. 1993 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 1 = 1993 (Supp.4) SCC 595; A. R. Antulay v. 
B 
R. S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 = 1988 (2) SCC 
602 - held inapplicable. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
In the order of Hon'ble Altamas Kabir, J 
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 611 referred to 
(1965) 2 SCR 800 
referr.ed to 
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to 
1"993 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to 
1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 533 referred to 
In the order of Hon'ble S. S. Nijjar,J 
2004 (12) sec 113 
2000 (2) Suppl. $CR 496 
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 571 
2007 (1) SCR 888 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para El 
Para ~t 
Para 11 
Para 13 
Para 16 
Para 9 
Para 10 
Para 15 
Para ·17 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 
held inapplicable Para 18 
held inapplicable Para 22 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the 
,, 
G 
Constitution of India. 
H 
Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, H.P. Raval, ASG, J.S. Attri, and 
Anil B. Divan, Lata Krishnamurthy, R.N. Karanjawala, Manik 
Karanajawala, Sandeep Kapur, Ravi Sharma, Pranav Oeish, 
S. Patnaik, Arjun Mahajan (for Karanjawala & Co.) Meenakshi 
RAM JETHMALANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 
65 
ORS. 
Arora and Samir Ali Khan, Devadatt Karnath, Anoopam N. 
A 
Prasad, Naila Jung, Nishanth Patil, Arijit Prasad, T.A. Khan, 
B.V. Balaram Das, Ashok Kumar Gupta I, H.S. Parihar, Asha 
Gopalan Nair (AOR), K.J. John & Co., Arti Singh, Pratap 
Venugopal, Namrata Sood, Sadhna Sandhu, Anil Katiyar, 
Aniradha Mutatkar, Anagha S. Desai, K.J. John & Co. Santosh 
B 
Paul, Arti Singh, Arvind Gupta, Rajiv Nanda and Sushma Suri 
for appearing parties. 
The following orders of the Court was delivered 
ORDER. 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No.176 of 
2009 was filed by Shri Ram Jethmalani and five others against 
the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities 
c 
·Exchange Board of India, the Director, Directorate of 
D 
Enforcement and the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, 
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of 
India, against the purported inaction of the Government to 
arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by 
Indian citizens in foreign banks and, in particular, in Swiss 
E 
Banks. In that context the Petitioners. inter alia, prayed for the · 
following reliefs :-
"(a) 
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue 
notice to all the Respondents calling upon them to 
disclose all the facts which have come to their 
F 
knowledge so far pertaining to the aforementioned 
issues and the steps taken by them in this regard; 
(b) 
to make orders from time to time to ensure that the 
outcome of the investigations are not suppressed 
G 
or even unduly delayed; 
(c) 
the suitable directions be issued
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.