Whilst I was wondering who will be the Lawyer to Defend the ALLEGED (NOT CONVICTED) rape accused.. I read that the Saket Bar Association has resolved that none of its Members should represent the Accused.. FREE AND FAIR TRIAL NOW GOES FOR A TOSS.... What iff the Delhi Police had framed innocents (1 or all 6) as the accused to save its image in Media and to show that they are competent and have got hold of the CORRECT offenders.. What iff they the ones accused did not commit the crime at all and it was few others who actually did it.. If it is so than WHY NOT SIMPLY HANG ALL SIX (without finding out the truth through TRIAL).. 1 Nirbhaya died seeking Justice and no try your luck in convicting another 6 wihout giving them a FREE and FAIR Trial...
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
International Arbitration- M/s. Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. M/s. Hornor Resources (Intern.) Co. Ltd.
On 13 September, 2011, in the case of M/s. Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. M/s.
Hornor Resources (Intern.) Co. Ltd. [Arbitration Petition Nos. 7 & 8 of 2009], the Court, while
dealing with arbitration applications under Section 11(5) & (9) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator in an international arbitration dispute, held
that “a party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and
reprobate”.”
The Court held that “where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or
an order, he is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or
conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a
manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.” It was held that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, “as the respondents had resorted to clause 5 of the Purchase
Agreement regarding price adjustment and the offer so made by the respondents was
accepted by the applicants and they agreed to receive a particular sum offered by the
respondents as a full and final settlement, the dispute comes to an end. “The applicants cannot
16 COURT NEWS JULY - SEPTEMBER, 2011take a complete somersault and agitate the issue that the offer made by the respondents had
erroneously been accepted.
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. RTI Act-
On 9 August, 2011, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011], the Court inter alia considered the
questions: 1) Whether an examinee's right to information under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (RTI Act) includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or
taking certified copies thereof; 2) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer
books “in a fiduciary relationship” and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the
evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act and 3) If the examinee is entitled to
inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is
subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards. The Court referred to the statement of
objects and reasons, the preamble and the relevant provisions of the RTI Act and answered the
said questions respectively as follows:-
(i) “The evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act.” “Having regard to
section 3 of the RTI Act, the citizens have the right to access to all information held by or under
the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act.” “The
examining bodies (Universities, Examination Boards, CBSC etc.) are neither security nor
intelligence organisations and therefore the exemption under section 24 of the Act will not
apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer-books does not also
involve infringement of any copyright and therefore section 9 of the Act will not apply.
Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer-
10 COURT NEWS JULY - SEPTEMBER, 2011books fall under any of the categories of exempted 'information' enumerated in clauses (a) to (j)
of sub-section (1) section 8 of the Act, they will be bound to provide access to the information
and any applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain
certified copies thereof.”
(ii) “The test for finding out whether the information is exempted or not, is not in regard to the
answer book but in regard to the evaluation by the examiner.” “The examining body is not in the
position of a fiduciary with reference to the examiner. On the other hand, when an answer-book
is entrusted to the examiner for the purpose of evaluation, for the period the answer-book is in
his custody and to the extent of the discharge of his functions relating to evaluation, the
examiner is in the position of a fiduciary with reference to the examining body and he is barred
from disclosing the contents of the answer-book or the result of evaluation of the answer-book
to anyone other than the examining body. Once the examiner has evaluated the answer books,
he ceases to have any interest in the evaluation done by him. He does not have any copy-right
or proprietary right, or confidentiality right in regard to the evaluation. Therefore it cannot be
said that the examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship, qua
the examiner.” Therefore “an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a
fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary
relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with
reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in
respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought
by the examinees.”
(iii) “The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the
examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/co-ordinator/head
examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/ head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under section
8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their
physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer-books
either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given
only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the
examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under
section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information
regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose
their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or
otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI
Act.” “The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing
information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. If the rules and
regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of
the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such
information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority.”“The
RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. If a public authority has
any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant
COURT NEWS JULY - SEPTEMBER, 2011 11may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the
information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is
not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority,
the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such nonavailable information and then furnish it to an applicant.” “The provisions of RTI Act should be
enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under
clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in
the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other
information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the
Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of
sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments,
etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all
and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of
public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will
adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not
be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development
and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should
it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their
duty. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI
Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at
the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
A good school can make all the difference- By Abhinav Malhotra
KANPUR: The various Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the state have helped poor students fulfil their dreams of graduating from premier institutions.
This fact emerged after 24 students of Bhabha Super-35 (which functions on the lines of Bihar's Super 30) cracked the prestigious Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) out of a batch of 35, most of whom had studied at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.
The Novadaya Vidyalayas are government schools providing free education to the students who come from poor-socio economic backgrounds.
Those with a zeal to scale new heights are selected by these schools after a round of entrance test.
After this, according to a set schedule, the students are taught the basics of maths, science and chemistry. This platform helps students crack the JEE. Some students of Bhabha Super-35 shared their strategy for cracking the prestigious entrance exam with TOI.
These students were - Sunil Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Shashank Kumar Maurya and Jetendra Kumar Prabhakar. Besides cracking JEE, these students also had another thing common in them.
They are the alumni of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas.
These students attributed their success to the teachers of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected them in the Super-35 batch from across the state and taught them.
Sunil, who hails from a small village in Balia district, said he has seen days of extreme struggle as the only earning member of his family - Kailash Ram, his father, is a daily wage labourer earning Rs 240 a day.
At a time when it was difficult for Kailash to manage two square meals a day, teaching his son was a pointless issue. But Sunil's inclination towards study and on knowing that Jawahar Novadaya Vidyalaya does not charge any fee, Kailash agreed to send his son. Today, Sunil has got the all-India rank 870 in the JEE.
Kailash now understands what his son has achieved. He thinks that his days of misfortune will end now.
"All thanks to Navodaya teachers and Mahesh sir of Bhabha Super-35. I could reach here only because of them," said Sunil.
Similar has been the story of Rohit Kumar and Shashank, natives of Jalaun and Varanasi districts respectively.
Shashank has secured 1,139th in the very first attempt at JEE. He had also secured 89% in Class XII exams this year.
Shashank's father is a salesman and has a meagre income but he taught his son to the best of his capabilities.
Now, Shashank, having done his parents and city Varanasi proud, wishes to opt for aerospace engineering from IIT-Kanpur.
Jetendra Kumar Prabhkar, a native of a nondescript village of Jalaun, has also been a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya (in Jalaun) and is a lad of a farmer who died when Jetendra was a child.
Jetendra was raised up by his mother and elder brother. He credits his success to the teachers of Navodaya Vidyalaya and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected him in the batch of Super 35 and helped him secure 606th rank in the JEE.
Jetendra said that he wants to pursue graduation in mechanical engineering from IIT-KANPUR
This fact emerged after 24 students of Bhabha Super-35 (which functions on the lines of Bihar's Super 30) cracked the prestigious Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) out of a batch of 35, most of whom had studied at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.
The Novadaya Vidyalayas are government schools providing free education to the students who come from poor-socio economic backgrounds.
Those with a zeal to scale new heights are selected by these schools after a round of entrance test.
After this, according to a set schedule, the students are taught the basics of maths, science and chemistry. This platform helps students crack the JEE. Some students of Bhabha Super-35 shared their strategy for cracking the prestigious entrance exam with TOI.
These students were - Sunil Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Shashank Kumar Maurya and Jetendra Kumar Prabhakar. Besides cracking JEE, these students also had another thing common in them.
They are the alumni of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas.
These students attributed their success to the teachers of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected them in the Super-35 batch from across the state and taught them.
Sunil, who hails from a small village in Balia district, said he has seen days of extreme struggle as the only earning member of his family - Kailash Ram, his father, is a daily wage labourer earning Rs 240 a day.
At a time when it was difficult for Kailash to manage two square meals a day, teaching his son was a pointless issue. But Sunil's inclination towards study and on knowing that Jawahar Novadaya Vidyalaya does not charge any fee, Kailash agreed to send his son. Today, Sunil has got the all-India rank 870 in the JEE.
Kailash now understands what his son has achieved. He thinks that his days of misfortune will end now.
"All thanks to Navodaya teachers and Mahesh sir of Bhabha Super-35. I could reach here only because of them," said Sunil.
Similar has been the story of Rohit Kumar and Shashank, natives of Jalaun and Varanasi districts respectively.
Shashank has secured 1,139th in the very first attempt at JEE. He had also secured 89% in Class XII exams this year.
Shashank's father is a salesman and has a meagre income but he taught his son to the best of his capabilities.
Now, Shashank, having done his parents and city Varanasi proud, wishes to opt for aerospace engineering from IIT-Kanpur.
Jetendra Kumar Prabhkar, a native of a nondescript village of Jalaun, has also been a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya (in Jalaun) and is a lad of a farmer who died when Jetendra was a child.
Jetendra was raised up by his mother and elder brother. He credits his success to the teachers of Navodaya Vidyalaya and Mahesh Singh Chauhan who selected him in the batch of Super 35 and helped him secure 606th rank in the JEE.
Jetendra said that he wants to pursue graduation in mechanical engineering from IIT-KANPUR
Thursday, May 19, 2011
PH Parekh rejects Jethmalani challenging ‘inadequate’, ‘corrupt’ SCBA elections
|
The now five-time winner of the SCBA presidency PH Parekh has rejected Jethmalani’s arguments as motivated by his election loss.
Legally India first reported yesterday that Parekh won the SCBA presidential election by two votes over Adish Aggarwal, and by 22 votes over the incumbent, Jethmalani.
In a letter also dated yesterday (12 May) and addressed to the members of the SCBA election committee, Jethmalani wrote that there had been “corruption” in the run-up to the election and that the “logistic arrangements for conducting the poll on the next day were to say the least extremely inadequate”. (download full letter below story)
In particular he said that the 10 May “announcement of the corruption that had vitiated the election campaign came as a pleasant surprise”. He did not elaborate on the nature of the alleged corruption but added that while he was initially not in favour of the election committee’s resignation and postponement of the election, because the “corruption” had not been disclosed to all voters in “frank disclosure… it would have been better if the elections would have been postponed to some propitious occasion”.
On the logistics he wrote that there were so many voters and inadequate facilities, which required “non-human patience to stand in that furnace of an atmosphere in a suffocating queue”.
The deadline for voting was therefore extended from 4pm to 7pm, which Jethmalani argued was not communicated to all the voters. It appeared that one tenth of voters who had taken the registration slip did not turn out to vote, he claimed, adding that especially senior advocates would have been absent whose vote “could have made a material difference”.
He concluded his two-page letter stating “I suggest that in spite of all your good intention and spirit of accommodation the validity of the election is open to serious challenge.
“I am not sure whether it is within your jurisdiction to do anything now. Do kindly inform me whether you propose to do anything. If not you would kindly indicate that you have no quarrel with the validity of the above objections.”
Counter-point
Parekh, who won with 757 votes told Legally India that Jethmalani himself was present and agreed to the election time being extended beyond 4pm. “If he had any objection, he should have declared any objection then. If he had won he would have been very happy [and] he would have said ‘wonderfully conducted election’.”
“After all, the people who conducted elections are the senior lawyers, one of them is a former judge and [one] an additional solicitor general. To make these allegations now – because of what he’s written in the letter - he should have said before the result was declared,” noted Parekh.
In respect of the Jethmalani’s charges of corruption, Parekh noted that the committee itself was not accused of corruption but that one of the SCBA vice-presidential candidates had complained against another candidate for the same post and the committee said it did not want to get into the issue and would resign.
However both Jethmalani and Parekh argued against this and said that complaints should be considered by the next executive committee. “If they don’t resign, carry on,” said Parekh, “and everyone told them to continue.”
Parekh added that Jethmalani should accept the loss of the presidency gracefully and contest again in next year’s elections.
The referees
Senior advocate Jawahar Lal Gupta, who sat as chairman of the SCBA election committee, told Legally India that the election committee would meet tomorrow morning and would send a reply to Jethmalani.
Written by Kian Ganz | Friday, 13 May 2011 15:56 | Bar, Bench & Litigation
Source Legally India
Fees charged by arbitrators ‘very high and limitless’,
Express News ServiceTags : Chandigarh Housing Board, Project Prideasia, Punjab and Haryana High CourtPosted: Thu May 19 2011, 00:15 hrsChandigarh:
Terming the fees being charged by arbitrators for resolving disputes between Parsvnath and Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) in regard to the multi-crore mega project Prideasia as “very high and limitless”, the CHB on Wednesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Taking stock of its contentions, a division bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta stayed the proceedings pending before the tribunal comprising three arbitrators — Chief Justice of India (Retd) G B Patnaik, retired Supreme Court Justice D P Wadhwa and retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Amar Dutt.
Staying further proceedings pending before the tribunal till July 6, the high court issued notices to Parsvnath and the three arbitrators asking them to respond to the contentions raised by CHB in its petition.
Appearing on behalf of CHB, Advocate Sanjay Kaushal contended that till now, the CHB has paid over Rs 80 lakh to the three arbitrators. Each have been paid Rs 26 lakh, he added.
According to CHB, it had requested the tribunal to reduce the fees of the three arbitrators from Rs 1.50 lakh each to Rs 25,000. But the tribunal had declined the request on May 2. Aggrieved, the CHB moved the high court. It also demanded that the order of the tribunal, demanding remaining payment as well as advance amount, be stayed.
Kaushal challenged orders dated December 18, 2009, April 9, 2010 and February 28, 2011, in which, arbitrators had decided their fees and also rejected the CHB’s request to reduce their fees. The CHB petition added that for 20 sittings, Rs 39 lakh has been paid on account of arbitrators’ fees. Also, former arbitrator of the tribunal, Justice S C Agrawal, was paid Rs 12.60 lakh.
“Apart from the fees, parties before the tribunal have also been burdened with the expense of providing for travel, boarding and lodging arrangements for the arbitrators. Owing to the stature of arbitrators, the same has necessarily had to be in the premium classes,” the petition read.
The CHB has also objected to the tribunal’s decision that sessions from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm would be counted as two sittings. The petitioner has submitted that “the order does not record any consent by the parties”.
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com
NGO gets SC nod to assist in Dinakaran probe
First Published : 19 May 2011 03:18:37 AM IST
Last Updated : 19 May 2011 08:23:14 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Senior counsel U Lalith, appearing for eminent jurist P P Rao, made a spirited defence of the latter by saying that Rao had never handed over a complaint to the then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran.
And he did not lead the delegation that had handed over the complaint. It is a fact that he had participated in a seminar, Lalith told a Vacation Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Chandrasmauli Kumar Prasad.The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Dinakaran challenging the order of the 3-member committee constituted by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha declining the withdrawal of P P Rao from the panel.Meanwhile, the Bench permitted an NGO to assist panel in its ongoing inquiry against Dinakaran. The Bench allowed civil society Forum for Judicial Accountability’s plea after it contended that earlier it had been allowed to assist the inquiry committee during the impeachment process of Justice V Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court.Supreme Court judge Justice Aftab Alam, senior advocate P P Rao and the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Justice J S Khehar are the members of the panel.Justice Dinakaran moved the apex court challenging the ongoing probe against him by the panel alleging that it had exceeded its jurisdiction in probing charges of judicial misconduct and corruption against him. On this, the apex court issued notice and stayed the inquiry by the panel.“I drafted the memorandum. It was touched upon by other senior counsel. When Dinakaran met me at my residence in December, I told him that there should be a public inquiry in which he should be exonerated.”
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/ngo-gets-sc-nod-to-assist-in-dinakaran-probe/275771.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)