Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Decide bail petitions uninfluenced by media: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday muffled its anger over media distorting its simple query about CBIs stand in the trial court on the bail pleas of Kanimozhi and four others in the 2G scam case and said the special CBI judge would decide the petitions ignoring the newspaper reports. A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu said,We express our serious anguish over the distorted and misleading versions of the proceedings reported in newspapers,which is most unfortunate and regrettable.There is also an attempt to tarnish the CBI. Someday,they will get into trouble. The reporting in the print media shall not influence the adjudication before the trial court.
Special CBI judge O P Saini had reserved verdict on the bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozi,Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar,directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agrawal and film producer Karim Morani and is likely to pronounce the order on November 3. Giving the clarification on CBIs stand on these five bail petitions,additional solicitor general Harin Raval told the bench that though the agency had not opposed their pleas,it had made it clear that the trial court had the inherent discretion in deciding whether or not to grant bail.The bench said no one could possibly question the discretion of the prosecuting agency and the special public prosecutor to make a submission before the trial court.As the bench also reserved its orders on the bail pleas of Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra,Swan Telecom MD Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG executives Gautam Doshi,Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair,Chandras counsel Ram Jethmalani made an unusual request to the court.
================================
(Source-toi)
Special CBI judge O P Saini had reserved verdict on the bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozi,Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar,directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agrawal and film producer Karim Morani and is likely to pronounce the order on November 3. Giving the clarification on CBIs stand on these five bail petitions,additional solicitor general Harin Raval told the bench that though the agency had not opposed their pleas,it had made it clear that the trial court had the inherent discretion in deciding whether or not to grant bail.The bench said no one could possibly question the discretion of the prosecuting agency and the special public prosecutor to make a submission before the trial court.As the bench also reserved its orders on the bail pleas of Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra,Swan Telecom MD Vinod Goenka and Reliance ADAG executives Gautam Doshi,Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair,Chandras counsel Ram Jethmalani made an unusual request to the court.
================================
(Source-toi)
Increase frivolous litigation cost by 3,000%,says SC
The Supreme Court has suggested a 3,000% increase in the cost imposed on a person indulging in frivolous and vexatious litigation,saying unless it was hiked from Rs 3,000 to Rs 100,000, the system would fail to control false cases being foisted to victimize innocent citizens. A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik,in a judgment delivered last month but made available on Tuesday said. At present,the courts have virtually given up awarding any compensatory costs as award of such small sum of Rs 3,000 would not make much difference.We are of the view that the ceiling in regard to compensatory costs should be at least Rs 100,000.
It referred to Section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which provided for compensatory cost in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence.The maximum amount to be levied on a person indulging in false litigation was amended in 1977 from Rs 1,000 to Rs 3,000. Justice Raveendran,who has since retired,expressed dismay at the cost remaining unchanged for the last 34 years and said, Unless the compensatory cost is brought to a realistic level,the present provision authorizing levy of an absurdly small sum by present day standards may,instead of discouraging such litigation,encourage false and vexatious claims.
Times View : We have consistently maintained that the judiciary needs to take a tough stance against frivolous litigation.The observation of SC should go a long way towards curbing the menace,at least as far as individual litigants are concerned. It remains to be seen whether the much stiffer monetary penalty becomes a serious deterrent also for organisations out to earn cheap publicity. If this too fails to rein them in, the court should think in terms of going beyond just monetary fines for dealing with the problem.That step, however, can wait till the current measure has had a fair trial.
=================================
Apex Court wants normal litigation cost as penalty
The bench also did not approve the present day tendency of courts not to award even normal litigation cost,different from exemplary cost,to the litigant who wins a case.Prosecution and defence of cases is a time consuming and costly process. A plaintiff /petitioner /appellant who is driven to the court by the illegal acts of the defendant/ respondent,or denial of a right to which he is entitled,if he succeeds,to be reimbursed of his expenses in accordance with law.
The court said it was talking of normal litigation cost and it should not be calculated on the basis of actual cost of fighting a case.For,a wealthy person may engage five senior advocates with fees running into lakhs of rupees per day and other side cannot be asked to reimburse such astronomical amounts, it said. Appreciating assistance rendered to court by Dr Arun Mohan and Sr advocate A Mariarputham, the bench said there was a misconception among people that the court fees for litigation were high.It said in Supreme Court,the maximum court fee payable was Rs 250, whether it was a suit or a special leave petition. But it said the time had come for courts to ask for fees commensurate with that spent by the courts on highvalue litigation.
Arbitration matters,company matters,tax matters,for example,may involve huge amounts. There is no reason why a nominal fee should be collected in this regard to such cases. While we are not advocat-ing ad valorem fee with reference to value in such matters,at least the fixed fee should be sufficiently high to have some kind of quid pro quo to the cost involved, said Justice Raveendran,who authored the judgment.
========================
(sourcee-toi)
It referred to Section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which provided for compensatory cost in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence.The maximum amount to be levied on a person indulging in false litigation was amended in 1977 from Rs 1,000 to Rs 3,000. Justice Raveendran,who has since retired,expressed dismay at the cost remaining unchanged for the last 34 years and said, Unless the compensatory cost is brought to a realistic level,the present provision authorizing levy of an absurdly small sum by present day standards may,instead of discouraging such litigation,encourage false and vexatious claims.
Times View : We have consistently maintained that the judiciary needs to take a tough stance against frivolous litigation.The observation of SC should go a long way towards curbing the menace,at least as far as individual litigants are concerned. It remains to be seen whether the much stiffer monetary penalty becomes a serious deterrent also for organisations out to earn cheap publicity. If this too fails to rein them in, the court should think in terms of going beyond just monetary fines for dealing with the problem.That step, however, can wait till the current measure has had a fair trial.
=================================
Apex Court wants normal litigation cost as penalty
The bench also did not approve the present day tendency of courts not to award even normal litigation cost,different from exemplary cost,to the litigant who wins a case.Prosecution and defence of cases is a time consuming and costly process. A plaintiff /petitioner /appellant who is driven to the court by the illegal acts of the defendant/ respondent,or denial of a right to which he is entitled,if he succeeds,to be reimbursed of his expenses in accordance with law.
The court said it was talking of normal litigation cost and it should not be calculated on the basis of actual cost of fighting a case.For,a wealthy person may engage five senior advocates with fees running into lakhs of rupees per day and other side cannot be asked to reimburse such astronomical amounts, it said. Appreciating assistance rendered to court by Dr Arun Mohan and Sr advocate A Mariarputham, the bench said there was a misconception among people that the court fees for litigation were high.It said in Supreme Court,the maximum court fee payable was Rs 250, whether it was a suit or a special leave petition. But it said the time had come for courts to ask for fees commensurate with that spent by the courts on highvalue litigation.
Arbitration matters,company matters,tax matters,for example,may involve huge amounts. There is no reason why a nominal fee should be collected in this regard to such cases. While we are not advocat-ing ad valorem fee with reference to value in such matters,at least the fixed fee should be sufficiently high to have some kind of quid pro quo to the cost involved, said Justice Raveendran,who authored the judgment.
========================
(sourcee-toi)
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Practice by Lawyers - entitled as of right to practice throughout the territory of India
Government has said that it has notified Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 recently enabling the lawyers to practice in courts across the country irrespective of their enrolment in any Bar Council without the need to transfer license to their desired States. Giving this information in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice, said that subject to provision of the Advocates Act, 1961, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practice throughout the territories to which this Act extends. He informed the House that this section has come into force with effect from the 15th June, 2011.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
83 Complaints Against JS Level and Above Officers
As per information provided by CBI, it has registered 83 complaints against the working officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above during the period 2008 and 2011 (till 30.6.2011).
(SOURCE - PIB)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
NRI seeks Rs 5000 crore compensation from CBI
The Delhi high court has asked the CBI to respond to an NRI's plea seeking compensation of Rs 5,000 crore for implicating him in a criminal case for 25 years. Justice Ajit Bharihoke issued notice to the CBI and sought the reply by September 27 on N S Hoon's plea, which also seeks action against the erring officials of the investigating agency for harassing him for such a long time.
Seeking a compensation of Rs 5,000 crore, Hoon, who had acquired British citizenship, said the then senior officers of the probe agency had acted against him at the instance of some influential persons and they should be prosecuted as per law. Hoon claimed he has undergone mental agony and physical sufferings in the past 25 years and he should be financially compensated.
"I was arrested on May 14, 1987, despite an anticipatory bail order in my favour from Delhi high court and they seized my passport for such a long time causing huge losses to my business abroad," Hoon said. He said the trial court had acquitted him from all the charges under the Foreigners Act in January.
According to CBI, Hoon had concealed his identity as a British citizen during his stay in two different hotels, during 1986-1987, which constituted an offence under the act. The CBI alleged during his stay in Delhi's Ambassador Hotel, the petitioner had paid the hotel tariff of Rs 400, which he should have paid in British pounds for being the citizen of the UK. Similarly, he had stayed at Hakman's hotel in Jaipur and cleared the hotel bills to the tune of Rs 8,000 in Indian rupees which constituted an offence under the Foreigners Act, according to the prosecution.
(SOURCE- PTI Jul 31, 2011, 10.18AM IST)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)