Girlfriend can't be called kin, says HC

And we need a high court judgment to tell us this… after supreme court reportedly has already said so… Bharat Mahan… raho pareshaan!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Girlfriend-cant-be-called-kin-says-HC/articleshow/6442289.cms#ixzz0xlDXEHbV

TNN, Aug 27, 2010, 01.39am IST

MUMBAI: With live-in relations being accorded sanctity by law, can a girlfriend be a relative, the Bombay high court  wondered on Thursday. The court was hearing an application filed by a woman, Sunita, who had been named in a dowry harassment case. She had been dragged into the case filed by another woman, who claimed that Sunita was her husband's girlfriend and had accused her of cruelty.

A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi, in an interim order, stayed the criminal charges in the case against her till further orders.

Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The cruelty could also be for failing to meet the unlawful demands of property or valuable security. Cruelty could refer to the conduct of a husband or in-laws that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself.

Earlier, the Supreme Court, in a landmark order, had said that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a "relative'' in a 498 A case. The apex court had held that a concubine or a mistress cannot be charged under Section 498A. By no stretch of imagination can a girlfriend or even a concubine... be a relative. The word relative brings within its purview a status that can be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption, the SC bench had remarked.

How ex-CJI's sons got prime plot they had never bid for Read more

Still believe in the white lie that Indian judiciary is highly respected in the world?  By whom?  Indian judiciary itself!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-ex-CJIs-sons-got-prime-plot-they-had-never-bid-for/articleshow/6428954.cms#ixzz0xcCgO9gZ

Aug 25, 2010

NEW DELHI: The two sons of former chief justice of India Y K Sabharwal, who are being probed for their previous business deals, suddenly came to buy a Rs 122 crore property in Lutyens' Delhi four months ago, thanks to a series of controversial orders passed by the Delhi high court.

Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal, together with their partner Kabul Chawla, chief of real estate company BPTP, turned out to be the ultimate beneficiaries of high court orders passed since 2006 in connection with the auction of the 2.70-acre property at 7 Sikandra Road.

An appeal challenging the April 2010 sale deed revealed that the three partners had not participated in an auction in September 2006 on which a two-judge bench declared Triveni Infrastructure the highest bidder. Triveni was required to pay 25% of its bid amount, Rs 117 crore, within a week and the balance within three weeks thereafter, subject to the condition of the property being converted from leasehold to freehold.

But Triveni became liable to pay the 75% component only in February 2009 as it had taken so long for the property to be converted to freehold. It was then that a succession of single-judge orders, in breach of the schedule laid down by the larger bench, resulted in the payment being finally made, with a Rs 5 crore penalty, in April 2010, that too by the two Sabharwals and Chawla although they had no formal stake in Triveni.

The appeal being heard by a special bench headed by Justice A K Sikri shed light on the various ways in which the 2006 order had been bypassed, particularly by Justice Manmohan Singh, leading to a windfall for the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla:

* When the owners of the property filed a contempt application against Triveni for its failure to pay the balance in February 2009, Justice Manmohan Singh gave more time to the defaulter directing that it would have to pay Rs 3 crore by July-end and Rs 85 crore by October-end. Later, he extended the time further to December-end with a penalty of Rs 5 crore.

* The repeated extension of the deadline by Justice Manmohan Singh was contrary to the division bench's direction that if the highest bidder failed to make the payments on time, the property would have to be sold to the next highest bidder, Prime Commercial.

* In June 2009, Justice Manmohan Singh allowed a four-day old company, Angle Infrastructure, to come in place of Triveni for paying the balance and to take over the property. The owners of the property appealed against this order as it had been passed without any notice to them.

* A week before the expiry of the December 2009 deadline, Justice Manmohan Singh gave a fresh extension to Angle, this time by five months. He also granted Angle's request to introduce the condition that it would be required to pay the balance only when the owners were in a position to deliver immediate possession of the property. Most of the owners challenged this order, again because it had been passed without any notice to them.

* A month before the expiry of the May 2010 deadline, Triveni and Angle filed a joint application requesting that the balance be allowed to be paid by the Sabharwals and Chawla and that the property be registered in their names. Since the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla appeared in the court with demand drafts of the balance amount, Justice Rajiv Shakdher directed the owners on April 20 to execute the sale deed within two days.

That is how the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla acquired the property from an auction in which they had not participated at all. The appeal filed subsequently by the second highest bidder, Prime, challenged the manner in which the court had granted undue concessions to Triveni and deprived it (Prime) of its entitlement under the auction terms to buy out the property. Seeking a fresh auction of the Sikandra Road property, Prime offered to pay Rs 150 crore in keeping with the appreciation of the property value in these four years.

The real estate business partnership between the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla has been the subject of income tax probe following allegations that they had unduly benefited from the 2006 sealing drive against commercial properties in residential areas of Delhi launched by the then CJI, Justice Y K Sabharwal.

Delhi High Court exposes how lawyers do ‘business’ in India

The following recent judgment of Justice Dhingra of Delhi HC exposes how lawyers make flimsy excuses to delay cases and put both litigants and witnesses to hardship.  But the larger question is that if the lawyers are doing it, then why are not the judges putting exemplary costs to discourage such behaviour, as done in this case by having petitioner pay the respondent Rs 25,000.

The important parts are made bold in judgment below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/10-03-2010/SND09032010CMM4962009.pdf

CM (M) No. 496/2009    Smt. Rampyari & Ors.v. Ms. Kamlesh

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 2nd
February, 2010
Date of Order: 9th
March, 2010
CM (M) No. 496/2009 & CM No. 7663/2009
%                     09.03.2010
  Smt. Rampyari & Ors.        ... Petitioners
        Through: Mr. Rakesh Prabhakar, Advocate
Versus
  Ms. Kamlesh            ... Respondent
        Through: Respondent-in-person
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?        Yes.
JUDGMENT
     By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 25th
March, 2009 whereby an application of the petitioner for recalling witness PW-2 for cross examination, whose cross examination was closed on 29th
September, 2008 by the trial Court, was dismissed.  The application for recalling was made on 6th  December,2008.  The trial Court after observing the history and manner in which the petitioners
impeded the trial, found no force in the application and dismissed the application. 

2.    This case represents a typical example how the trial goes on in Indian
Courts and how the Courts are taken for granted. Issues in this case were framed on
3rd August, 2006 and thereafter plaintiff’s witnesses appeared for their testimony on
21st  February, 2007,  when  the  cross examination of the witnesses  was to be
conducted.  An application was made on behalf of the petitioner stating that  their
Counsel had suddenly fallen ill and adjournment was sought, which was allowed.
Next date for cross examination was fixed as 16th
April, 2007.  On 16th  April, 2007
when witness appeared for cross examination an application was made on behalf of
defendant no.8 stating that there was a death in the family of the petitioners’ Counsel
case be adjourned.  The case was then adjourned for 17th
  July, 2007 for cross examination of the plaintiff.  On 17th
July, 2007 a proxy Counsel appeared and stated
that the petitioners’ Counsel was down with fever and adjournment was sought which
CM (M) No. 496/2009    Smt. Rampyari & Ors.v. Ms. Kamlesh    was  granted and case was listed for 17th   September, 2007.  On 17th  September,
2007 again  a  prayer was made to the  Court stated that  the  Counsel for the
petitioners  was down with fever and adjournment was sought.  The  trial  Court
observed that there was no written request made on behalf of the Counsel for the
petitioners.  The same excuse was being taken again and again so, the Court closed
the cross examination of PW-1.  Again  an  application was made on  behalf of the
petitioners  for recalling PW-1 for cross examination.  The application was allowed
vide order dated 25th  April, 2008 subject to cost of Rs.500/- and the case was listed
for remaining cross examination of PW-1 on 3rd
July, 2008. On 3rd  July, 2008 again,
Counsel for the petitioner made a prayer for adjournment on the ground that he had
not gone through the relevant record and could not prepare the cross examination.
This adjournment was allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-  and a last opportunity
was given. The matter was now listed on 18th  August, 2008, and the Counsel for the
petitioners  again  did not appear and it was told that he was busy in High Court.
Since it was the last opportunity and the matter had already been passed over twice,
the Court refused to give further pass over or adjournment.  The other Counsel Mr.
B.N.Sharma who had appeared for the petitioners, cross examined the witness and
this is how PW-1 was treated and cross examined in the Court.  The matter was then
listed for cross examination of other witnesses on 29th  September, 2008.  The
witnesses appeared and were present in the Court since morning.  The counsel for
the petitioners again did not turn up and the case was passed over twice and at the
third call still when the counsel for the petitioner was not available,  the Court closed
the cross examination of this witnesses.  The application for recalling them was made
after 2 ½ months and was dismissed by the trial Court by a speaking order noting the
history of the case.  The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for recalling
the order. 

3.    I consider that the manner in which petitioners had  impeded  the trial
and the manner in which  the treatment  was  given to the witnesses,  the petition
deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.  It only seems that the petitioners had
taken the Courts for granted.  It is considered as if Courts exist for providing business
to the advocates and if advocates are busy in High Court or in other Courts and
choose not to appear for false and lame excuses, the witnesses are to suffer and the
system has to suffer,  the party has to suffer but the advocates’ business should not
suffer.  I consider this attitude towards the litigation and courts must be brought to an
end it must be made clear that the Courts do not exist for providing business to the
advocates.  They exist for adjudicating the disputes between the parties and the
CM (M) No. 496/2009    Smt. Rampyari & Ors.v. Ms. Kamlesh witnesses or litigants cannot be given shabby treatment by taking adjournment after
adjournment  in the Courts as if they had done something wrong by bringing suit to
the court and they are made to appear in the Court 20 times when the evidence can
be over in one hearing. 

    This petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to
the respondent. 
March 09, 2010         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

Judges need a course in RTI Act, or maybe fundamental rights!

It was horrifying to read the judgment below, where an accused husband was given bail but with the condition that he will not file RTI regarding her wife or her family members (see bold sentence in judgment below).

http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_O.asp?pn=10933&yr=2010

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  BAIL APPLN. 2102/2009
  RAJESH VERMA .....
  Petitioner
  Through: Mr. Kunal Duggal and Mr. C.M. Verma
versus
  STATE ..... Respondent
  Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.
  ASI Shyamlal Bhardwaj, PS Lajpat Nagar.
  Mr. Ajay Digpal for the complainant.
  CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
   O R D E R
   18.01.2010
  Mediation is reported to have failed.
  The petitioner is the accused in the FIR of offences under Sections
  498A/406/34 of the IPC. He is working as a senior scientist with CSIR. According
  to the complainant wife, she is living separately from petitioner since 26th
  November, 2008. FIR was lodged on 4th June, 2009. The petitioner as well as the
  complainant wife had been married earlier. Each of them has a grown up child
  from the earlier marriage.
  The APP contends that no jewellery has been recovered from the
  petitioner. The counsel for the complainant wife contends that the petitioner is
  not paying any maintenance also. The petitioner had on 12th November, 2009
  before this court paid Rs.50,000/- to the complainant wife. It is further
  contended that the petitioner is harassing the complainant wife and her family.
  In the circumstances aforesaid, it is directed that in the event of
  arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing security bond of
  Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The following further
  conditions are agreed by the petitioner:-
  a. That the petitioner shall not file any complaint and/or RTI enquiries qua the
  affairs of the complainant wife or any of her family members.
  b. That the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
  complainant wife w.e.f. 1st December, 2009 and till the date of decision on the
  application for interim maintenance in maintenance proceedings stated to have
  been separately instituted. The amounts so paid shall be adjusted in the interim
  maintenance if any to which complainant wife is so found entitled. It is
  clarified that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month offered by petitioner as a
  condition for bail, shall not influence the court where application of
  complainant wife for maintenance is pending.
  c. The petitioner shall not leave Delhi without the permission of IO and shall
  deposit his passport with the IO.
  Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for parties.
  RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
  JANUARY 18, 2010
  pp

Let’s look at it from the following viewpoints:

1. It is a well accepted principle of law that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty.  Will the judges curb freedom of RTI if the accused was a powerful person?
2. Further, Right to Information is a fundamental right derived from Article 19 of Indian constitution, and also considered a fundamental right from various international conventions.  World over, fundamental rights cannot be curtailed except under very special situations of national security and the like.
3. Here it seems an accused if fit to be granted bail, but he is not fit enough to exercise his fundamental right of RTI.  He can exercise his right to vote, stand for elections, and so on, but only not be able to exercise RTI!  Under what rule can a judge trample upon fundamental right of a citizen, especially considering that no rationale or reason for the order has been given in judgment.
4. Right to Information grants an Indian citizen to get public information from public authorities.  Such information is already in public domain and no one can be said to be harassed or inconvenienced by disclosure of such public information.  The Right to Information is not right on private information of another person, but on public information which cannot be said to be private property of any person.  Then how can a judge decide that a particular person cannot file for RTI on another person.  The RTI is only on public information.
5. It seems clear that the judge has tried to cut off the source of information this accused man could use to prove himself innocent.  Read this story about how a man was able to prove his innocence using RTI in a very similar situation where he was accused by his wife in a dowry case.

Our hopes are that other judges will read this blog post and understand that their actions and judgments are being watched by citizens.

Delhi High Court Snubs 90% of Indians – says speak only English

Delhi High Court has rejected demands of lawyers’ association to argue in Hindi.

http://blog.taragana.com/law/2010/01/31/court-rejects-plea-of-lawyers-to-argue-in-hindi-19871/

This is what lawyers’ association has to say:

“When lawyers argue in Hindi, judges do not pay attention to them. English has become a status symbol,” Aggarwal said. Moreover, Article 348 of the constitution provides for arguing court cases in English as well as in regional languages, he pointed out.

“Hindi is being used in the high courts of Rajasthan, Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh, but not in the national capital,” he said.

Article 348, clause 2 deals with issue of allowing other languages apart from English.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of
clause (1), the Governor
1
*** of a State may, with the
previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the
Hindi language, or any other language used for any official
purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court
having its principal seat in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to
any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such
High Court.

So this basically means that even though the final judgment will be only in English but arguments and other high court activities can be allowed in Hindi or any other language.

The lawyers had earlier started a campaign on allowing usage of Hindi in Sep 2009 as given below.

http://www.legalindia.in/advocates-started-signature-compaign-for-allow-hindi-in-courts

It is interesting that the lower courts allow regional languages in courts, but the higher you go the access to justice will be limited to those who know English language.

Maybe first government should first make use of English mandatory in all public and government dealings in police, armed forces, government offices and so on.  Also the constitution should be changed to allow free English language learning to all children till age of 14.  Else how can it be hoped that 90% of Indians who don’t know English can get justice in courts?  Or probably the Delhi high court thinks that 90% of Indians don’t deserve to get to high court and above!  They should settle their matters in lower courts and be happy.