A day after the Karkardooma incident, the lawyers have withdrawn the call
of strike. Two constables who were found guilty of misusing their power have
been placed under suspension.
A committee, including Deputy Commissioner of Police, East and senior
advocates, has been constituted to examine allegations and counter allegations
of both the groups. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, Prabhakar,
“A committee consisting of advocate SK Ahluwalia and advocate Mukesh Bansal will
examine the matter.”
Two constables Ankit and Manoj who used prima facie disproportionate force in
Anand Vihar police station have been placed under suspension and inquiry in
being undertaken, he added.
The MCD demolition drive in the Inderpuri area of east district had turned
ugly on Thursday when a group of lawyers protested the MCD’s action. The
resistance soon turned into a violent clash that resulted in injuries to eight
policemen and 18 lawyers.
Tuesday 28 February 2012
City court to frame charges against seven persons
A city court on Friday decided to frame charges against seven persons,
including four MCD officials and a firm for their alleged roles in the CWG
street lighting scam, on February 27, saying it has found prima facie evidence
against them. Notably, this will be the first case in the Commonwealth Games
scam to enter the framing of charges stage; other CWG scam related cases are
still in the pre-charge stage.
Special CBI judge Pradeep Chaddah said a prima facie case exists against the accused persons and ‘let the charges be framed accordingly’. The persons who face the charges in the scam are MCD superintendent engineer DK Sugan, executive engineer OP Mahala, accountant Raju V and civic body’s tender clerk Gurcharan Singh besides director JP Singh and managing director TP Singh of private firm Sweska Powertech Engineers Pvt Ltd, who were allegedly illegally favoured in the award of street-lighting contracts. Another accused Mehul Karnik, an employee of Philips India Pvt Ltd, has, however, been discharged.
The CBI had booked them under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), forgery under IPC and various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The street lightning scam is one of the ten CWG-related scams being probed by the CBI. The agency had in its chargesheet alleged that in view of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, the MCD had decided to upgrade street lightening to international standards.
According to the chargesheet, tenders were invited by the civic agency in 2008 and five companies, including Sweska Powertech, applied for it, while the MCD commissioner approved of only three companies. After opening of the tender and announcing of the rates by accused Sugan, certain cuttings and interpolations in the tender papers of Sweska were made and the amount quoted by it was increased, said the CBI in its chargesheet, adding that this led to a wrongful loss of Rs 1,42,83,000 to the Government and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons.
Terming MCD superintending engineer Sugan, the senior most official, as the ‘kingpin’ of the conspiracy, the court said tenders were opened in his office on May 14, 2008 and he allowed fudging of Sweska’s tender papers.
The accused Gurcharan also neglected his duty to make entries in the register immediately at the opening of the tenders and the announcement of the rates, leaving room for later manipulations. “Had he noted rates announced by Sugan, it would have become very difficult to change the rates later in the bid document,” the court said, adding that accused Mahla signed the fudged documents and would not have remained a silent spectator without promise of his share in the booty.
The court also said Sweska and its promoters TP Singh and JP Singh have been rightly arrayed as accused as the tender was submitted by their company and the owner of a private company are the direct beneficiaries of any gain made by it.
It, however, discharged Philips India officer Mehul Karnik who the CBI said was present in the same room when the tenders were being opened, as it noted that the company initially participated in the tender process, but ultimately did not submit the tender.
Special CBI judge Pradeep Chaddah said a prima facie case exists against the accused persons and ‘let the charges be framed accordingly’. The persons who face the charges in the scam are MCD superintendent engineer DK Sugan, executive engineer OP Mahala, accountant Raju V and civic body’s tender clerk Gurcharan Singh besides director JP Singh and managing director TP Singh of private firm Sweska Powertech Engineers Pvt Ltd, who were allegedly illegally favoured in the award of street-lighting contracts. Another accused Mehul Karnik, an employee of Philips India Pvt Ltd, has, however, been discharged.
The CBI had booked them under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), forgery under IPC and various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The street lightning scam is one of the ten CWG-related scams being probed by the CBI. The agency had in its chargesheet alleged that in view of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, the MCD had decided to upgrade street lightening to international standards.
According to the chargesheet, tenders were invited by the civic agency in 2008 and five companies, including Sweska Powertech, applied for it, while the MCD commissioner approved of only three companies. After opening of the tender and announcing of the rates by accused Sugan, certain cuttings and interpolations in the tender papers of Sweska were made and the amount quoted by it was increased, said the CBI in its chargesheet, adding that this led to a wrongful loss of Rs 1,42,83,000 to the Government and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons.
Terming MCD superintending engineer Sugan, the senior most official, as the ‘kingpin’ of the conspiracy, the court said tenders were opened in his office on May 14, 2008 and he allowed fudging of Sweska’s tender papers.
The accused Gurcharan also neglected his duty to make entries in the register immediately at the opening of the tenders and the announcement of the rates, leaving room for later manipulations. “Had he noted rates announced by Sugan, it would have become very difficult to change the rates later in the bid document,” the court said, adding that accused Mahla signed the fudged documents and would not have remained a silent spectator without promise of his share in the booty.
The court also said Sweska and its promoters TP Singh and JP Singh have been rightly arrayed as accused as the tender was submitted by their company and the owner of a private company are the direct beneficiaries of any gain made by it.
It, however, discharged Philips India officer Mehul Karnik who the CBI said was present in the same room when the tenders were being opened, as it noted that the company initially participated in the tender process, but ultimately did not submit the tender.
City court summons six DU professors
Six Delhi University professors were issued summons by a city court on
Monday in connection with the 2010 Mayapuri radiation case, which had claimed
one life and left seven others injured after exposure to radioactive material in
a scrap market.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Lovleen has issued summons to DU professors, while taking cognisance of the chargesheet, which was under consideration since September last year and issued the summons to the six accused for March 12.
The Delhi Police had filed the chargesheet in September, accusing six DU professors of endangering lives by auctioning a radioactive gamma irradiator without following mandatory precautions. The chargesheet has named the then Head of Chemistry Department, VS Parmar, and the then Dean of Sciences, Roop Lal, as accused. Besides them, Rakesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra Rastogi, Ashok Prasad and Rita Kakkar have also been chargesheeted under various penal provisions dealing with causing death by rash and negligent acts and causing grievous injuries.
The irradiator was sold in the scrap market in violation of the rules of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which says any chemical product emitting radiations cannot be auctioned and disposed of without following mandatory regulations, the chargesheet said. One person had died and seven people were critically injured in April 2010 after they were exposed to radiation when they cut open a Cobalt-60 irradiator at Mayapuri scrap market.
The irradiator was traced to the University’s Chemistry Department. The police had said two committees, comprising university professors, were set up before the irradiator was decided to be auctioned. The first committee was set up to find out which materials were of no use to the university and could be sold and the second committee was formed to auction the waste products, the charge sheet said. The six accused professors were part of those committees and had recommended the auctioning, it said.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Lovleen has issued summons to DU professors, while taking cognisance of the chargesheet, which was under consideration since September last year and issued the summons to the six accused for March 12.
The Delhi Police had filed the chargesheet in September, accusing six DU professors of endangering lives by auctioning a radioactive gamma irradiator without following mandatory precautions. The chargesheet has named the then Head of Chemistry Department, VS Parmar, and the then Dean of Sciences, Roop Lal, as accused. Besides them, Rakesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra Rastogi, Ashok Prasad and Rita Kakkar have also been chargesheeted under various penal provisions dealing with causing death by rash and negligent acts and causing grievous injuries.
The irradiator was sold in the scrap market in violation of the rules of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which says any chemical product emitting radiations cannot be auctioned and disposed of without following mandatory regulations, the chargesheet said. One person had died and seven people were critically injured in April 2010 after they were exposed to radiation when they cut open a Cobalt-60 irradiator at Mayapuri scrap market.
The irradiator was traced to the University’s Chemistry Department. The police had said two committees, comprising university professors, were set up before the irradiator was decided to be auctioned. The first committee was set up to find out which materials were of no use to the university and could be sold and the second committee was formed to auction the waste products, the charge sheet said. The six accused professors were part of those committees and had recommended the auctioning, it said.
Ramjas racket: Student’s bail plea rejected
A city court on Monday rejected the bail plea of a student of Sri Ram
College of Commerce arrested for his alleged role in a racket for admission to
Ramjas and other Delhi University colleges.
Metropolitan Magistrate Devender Nain dismissed the bail plea of second-year student Sahil Gulati accused by the police of forging the marksheets to secure admissions of ineligible candidates in various DU colleges. While pleading for the bail, Gulati’s counsel told the court that he should be released from jail as he has to prepare for the forthcoming examinations and has been behind bars for 75 days now. Drawing a parallel between him and DMK MP Kanimozhi, his counsel said Gulati has been accused of cheating and so was the DMK leader.
“In the 2G case too, Kanimozhi has been given bail. She was also charged with cheating under the IPC,” he said. The Delhi Police had alleged Sahil and his accomplices were the first point of contact for students seeking admission in the college through dubious means. Along with Gulati, police had also arrested co-accused Mukul, a second-year Ramjas College student, Sanchit, an ex-Ramjas student and Rahul, owner of a cyber cafe where marksheets were forged.
Metropolitan Magistrate Devender Nain dismissed the bail plea of second-year student Sahil Gulati accused by the police of forging the marksheets to secure admissions of ineligible candidates in various DU colleges. While pleading for the bail, Gulati’s counsel told the court that he should be released from jail as he has to prepare for the forthcoming examinations and has been behind bars for 75 days now. Drawing a parallel between him and DMK MP Kanimozhi, his counsel said Gulati has been accused of cheating and so was the DMK leader.
“In the 2G case too, Kanimozhi has been given bail. She was also charged with cheating under the IPC,” he said. The Delhi Police had alleged Sahil and his accomplices were the first point of contact for students seeking admission in the college through dubious means. Along with Gulati, police had also arrested co-accused Mukul, a second-year Ramjas College student, Sanchit, an ex-Ramjas student and Rahul, owner of a cyber cafe where marksheets were forged.
Woman official, CA land in jail in bribery case
In a bid to deter Government officials and professionals from indulging in
corrupt activities, a city court on Tuesday jailed a woman government official
and a Chartered Accountant, both involved in a bribery case.
While the Assistant Sales Tax Officer Ved Prakash Kukreja (56) had accepted a bribe of Rs 1,500, the chartered accountant Ashish Garg (34) was held guilty for giving the said bribe amount. Special Judge BR Kedia sentenced Kukreja and Garg to three years and two years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively. In addition to the jail term, the judge also slapped a fine of Rs 20,000 each on them.
While sentencing the duo, the judge observed, “Professionals like doctors, engineers and CAs are held in high esteem in the eyes of the general public. They are not supposed to indulge in any such modalities of corruption. They are supposed to render their professional duties by exercising their specialised skill and knowledge. However, the present case displayed the offering of bribe by Garg to Kukreja on behalf of Shivalik Enterprises.”
The duo were caught red-handed on March 16, 2006 by the police after they raided Kukreja’s office on receiving information that bribe officers of Sales Tax department were taking bribe for settlement of the case files due to closing of the financial year. The raiding team saw Garg giving a white envelope to Kukreja. The white envelope contained Rs 1,500.
Upon interrogation, Garg told the police that he was a representative of Shivalik Enterprises and had visited Kukreja for final assessment of sales tax file of the company. While convicting Kukreja, the court rejected the defence’s claim that proper sanction was not taken for her prosecution saying, “Sanction was validly granted by the appropriate authority for Kukreja’s prosecution.” The defence counsel pleaded for leniency for Kukreja citing her old age and neurological disorder. Garg’s counsel also pleaded leniency for him citing his youth and family responsibilities.
The Public Prosecutor, however, demanded exemplary punishment to both saying, “Both the convicts do not deserve any leniency. Kukreja took bribe despite being placed in such a high rank in the Sales Tax office and Garg offered him the illegal gratification. The cancer of corruption has spread its tentacles in social life to such an extent that the belief of common man in institutional work has been obliterated. Therefore, exemplary punishment should be granted to them.”
The court convicted the duo under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. While awarding the quantum of sentence it said, “Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby sentence Kukreja to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Garg to two years’ rigorous imprisonment.”
While the Assistant Sales Tax Officer Ved Prakash Kukreja (56) had accepted a bribe of Rs 1,500, the chartered accountant Ashish Garg (34) was held guilty for giving the said bribe amount. Special Judge BR Kedia sentenced Kukreja and Garg to three years and two years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively. In addition to the jail term, the judge also slapped a fine of Rs 20,000 each on them.
While sentencing the duo, the judge observed, “Professionals like doctors, engineers and CAs are held in high esteem in the eyes of the general public. They are not supposed to indulge in any such modalities of corruption. They are supposed to render their professional duties by exercising their specialised skill and knowledge. However, the present case displayed the offering of bribe by Garg to Kukreja on behalf of Shivalik Enterprises.”
The duo were caught red-handed on March 16, 2006 by the police after they raided Kukreja’s office on receiving information that bribe officers of Sales Tax department were taking bribe for settlement of the case files due to closing of the financial year. The raiding team saw Garg giving a white envelope to Kukreja. The white envelope contained Rs 1,500.
Upon interrogation, Garg told the police that he was a representative of Shivalik Enterprises and had visited Kukreja for final assessment of sales tax file of the company. While convicting Kukreja, the court rejected the defence’s claim that proper sanction was not taken for her prosecution saying, “Sanction was validly granted by the appropriate authority for Kukreja’s prosecution.” The defence counsel pleaded for leniency for Kukreja citing her old age and neurological disorder. Garg’s counsel also pleaded leniency for him citing his youth and family responsibilities.
The Public Prosecutor, however, demanded exemplary punishment to both saying, “Both the convicts do not deserve any leniency. Kukreja took bribe despite being placed in such a high rank in the Sales Tax office and Garg offered him the illegal gratification. The cancer of corruption has spread its tentacles in social life to such an extent that the belief of common man in institutional work has been obliterated. Therefore, exemplary punishment should be granted to them.”
The court convicted the duo under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. While awarding the quantum of sentence it said, “Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby sentence Kukreja to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Garg to two years’ rigorous imprisonment.”
‘Case against Facebook biased’
Popular social networking site Facebook has told a city court that the
case against it for hosting objectionable contents has been filed with ‘ulterior
motives’.
The internet giant, in a written statement filed before the Additional Civil Judge Praveen Singh, also dubbed the complaint as gross abuse of the process of law. It alleged that the lawsuit has been filed to ‘harass’ it as it has been filed by a person who has approached the court with ‘unclean hands’.
The internet giant, in a written statement filed before the Additional Civil Judge Praveen Singh, also dubbed the complaint as gross abuse of the process of law. It alleged that the lawsuit has been filed to ‘harass’ it as it has been filed by a person who has approached the court with ‘unclean hands’.
India court criticises 'shifting stand' on gay sex
 |
| The 148-year-old colonial law was overturned in 2009 |
The health ministry says it supports a 2009 Delhi High Court order decriminalising gay sex.
But last week, senior government lawyer PP Malhotra told the Supreme Court that homosexuality was immoral.
Within hours, the home ministry disowned the lawyer's statement and said he had read from the wrong file.
The Delhi High Court ruling in 2009 overturned a 148-year-old colonial law which described a same-sex relationship as an "unnatural offence".
The Supreme Court is hearing challenges from groups opposing the new law.
"Don't make a mockery of the system and don't waste the court's time," the Supreme Court judges told the government on Tuesday.
Earlier, the health ministry told the court that there was "no error in decriminalising gay sex".
Last week, Additional Solicitor General PP Malhotra raised eyebrows with his statement in court: "Gay sex is highly immoral and against social order and there is high chance of spreading of diseases through such acts."
He said that India could not imitate Western practices.
But it turned out he had been reading an old statement delivered before the 2009 judgment. The home ministry said there had been a "miscommunication".
The 2009 ruling was welcomed by India's gay community, which said the judgement would help protect them from harassment and persecution.
But political, social and religious groups want the colonial-era law reinstated.
'What is unnatural sex?' Many people in India still regard same-sex relationships as illegitimate, but rights groups have long argued that the law contravened human rights.
Section 377 of the colonial Indian Penal Code defined homosexual acts as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and made them illegal.
But the Delhi High Court said the colonial-era law was discriminatory and gay sex between consenting adults should not be treated as a crime. Until the high court ruling, homosexual acts were punishable by a 10-year prison term.
Earlier this month the Supreme Court began a debate on the legality of decriminalising gay sex in private between consenting adults.
The court asked groups challenging the judgement to define "unnatural sex".
"So who is the expert to say what is 'unnatural sex'? The meaning of the word has never been constant," Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyaya asked a petitioner who challenged the judgement.
"We have travelled a distance of 60 years. Now it is test-tube babies, surrogate mothers. They are called discoveries. Is it in the order of nature? Is there carnal intercourse?" the judges asked.
High Court slaps contempt notices on Health Secretary, MCI chief
For failure to comply with its November 2010 order to implement BRHC course
The Delhi High Court on Monday served contempt notices on the Union
Health Secretary and the Chairperson of the Medical Council of India
(MCI) for their failure to comply with its order of November 10, 2010,
to implement measures for the introduction of a three-and-a-half year
course ‘Bachelor of Rural Health Care (BRHC)' by March 2011 for primary
health care in rural areas. The order had been issued in the case of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13208 of 2009 by petitioner Dr. Meenakshi
Gautam, a public health specialist.
The contempt notice was issued by the Bench comprising Justice Vipin
Sanghi on a plea by the petitioner to initiate contempt of court
proceedings against contemnors and it sought their response within four
weeks. The contempt petition was filed on Monday in the Delhi High
Court. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.
According to the contempt petition, the order of November 2010 had asked
the MCI to finalise the curriculum and syllabus for the BRHC, whose
implementation had been approved by the Centre, in two months. A further
period of two months was given to the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare for the enforcement of the same. The course had been proposed to
fill the gap of health care workers in rural areas where medical
graduates and professionals were unwilling to go and serve.
The petitioner said that, as per the timeline stipulated by the
government order, the course should have been introduced by March, 2011,
and that no such course had been introduced by the Ministry as of
February 2012. Further, the petition said, “in complete desecration of
the consent to this course furnished by its Counsel before the then
Hon'ble Chief Justice, the MCI apparently opposed the course in 2011 and
is not willing to notify it.”
Meet resolution
Dr. Gautam had filed her petition in 2009 based on the resolution of the
9th Conference of the Central Council of Health and Family Welfare on
November 13, 2007, for the introduction of a 3-year diploma course in
Medicine and Public Health, as well as the recommendation of 2007 Task
Force on Medical Education Reforms for National Rural Health Mission for
the introduction of the 3-year Rural Practitioner Course. In it, she
had sought directives from the honourable court to the government for
the introduction a short-term course for training mid-level health
workers for primary health care in rural areas.
In February 2011, the petitioner was told by the Ministry that it
intended to introduce the course after ensuring proper administrative
structure and curriculum, as soon as the Parliamentary Standing
Committee gave its report. Dr. Gautam was also told that the draft
course curriculum had been prepared by the Ministry and sent to the MCI
for their views in October 2010. In December 2010, the MCI, in turn,
proposed certain modifications which had been reviewed and responded to
by the Ministry in January 2011.
Lack of seriousness
In October, 2011, enquiries made revealed that the Standing Committee
report was yet to be finalised and therefore yet to be presented to
Parliament. Further, though the petitioner had been assured by Dr. K.K.
Talwar, Chairman, MCI, that the issue remained on the top of the agenda
of the MCI and the government, minutes of the December 2011 meeting of
the MCI Board of Governors revealed that there were no inputs on the
proposed course at the meeting. This, the petition said, betrayed a lack
of seriousness on the part of the MCI to take a positive and definite
decision on the notification of the course.
Monday 27 February 2012
SC gives green signal to interlinking of rivers project
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to implement the interlinking of rivers project in a time-bound manner and to appoint a high-powered committee for its planning and implementation. The apex court observed that the project is in national interest.
The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia has appointed a high-powered committee comprising of Union Minister of Water Resources, its secretary, Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) and four expert members appointed by Water Resources Ministry, Finance Ministry, Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment and Forest and NGO’s to monitor the project. Representatives from state governments, two social activists and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who has been assisting the court in the case, will also be members of the committee.
The court said that the committee will meet at least once in two months and its recommendations will be considered by the cabinet within 30 days of receipt. The project is a large-scale civil engineering project that aims to join the majority of India’s rivers by canals and so reduce persistent water shortages in parts of India.
Plans for parts of the Indian rivers inter-link were mooted in the British period. In 1972 the then Minister for Irrigation K L Rao proposed a 2640 kilometer long link between the Ganges and Cauvery rivers. In 1974 plans were proposed for the Garland canal. In 1982 the National Water Development Agency was set up to carry out surveys of the links and prepare feasibility studies.
The river interlinking project is considered the brainchild of the NDA government. In October, 2002, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had formed a task force to get the project going against the backdrop of the acute drought that year. A Centre-appointed task force had in a report recommended division of the project into two– the Peninsular component and the Himalayan component.
The Peninsular component– involving the rivers in southern India– envisaged developing a ‘Southern Water Grid’ with 16 linkages. This component included diversion of the surplus waters of the Mahanadi and Godavari to the Pennar, Krishna, Vaigai and Cauvery.
The task force had also mooted the diversion of the west-flowing rivers of Kerala and Karnataka to the east, the interlinking of small rivers that flow along the west coast, south of Tapi and north of Mumbai and interlinking of the southern tributaries of the river Yamuna.
The Himalayan component envisaged building storage reservoirs on the Ganga and the Brahmaputra and their main tributaries both in India and Nepal in order to conserve the waters during the monsoon for irrigation and generation of hydro-power, besides checking floods.
The task force had identified 14 links including Kosi-Ghagra, Kosi-Mech, Ghagra-Yamuna, Gandak-Ganga, Yamuna-Rajasthan, Rajasthan-Sabarmati, Sarda-Yamuna, Farakka-Sunderbans, Brahmaputra-Ganga, Subernarekha-Mahanadi, and Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha.
The task force had also concluded that the linking of rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared to a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.
The fate of the ambitious Rs 5,00,000 crore project proposing linkages between major rivers by the year 2016 has remained a virtual non-starter and the detailed project report (DPR) is in cold storage. The NRLP, if and when implemented, will be one of the biggest interbasin water transfer projects in the world.
Former president APJ Abdul Kalam had said good water management is needed to control floodwater and channel it for use during non-monsoon period and in drought-prone areas. In one of his speeches delivered in 2010 he spoke supporting the project. Kalam said interlinking of rivers would provide water to 86 drought-affected regions in the country. “The distribution of flood water through interlinking rivers with water bodies will provide water to drought-prone areas. Every year we receive millions of litres of water and most of it flows down to the sea while we face a water crisis. The water management will also help us in controlling water calamities, which every year claim many lives and destroy properties worth crores of rupees,” he said.
Giving the example of the 9% agriculture sector growth rate in Gujarat, Kalam said, “Water conservation and network of interlinking water bodies made the state record the highest growth rate compared to the rest of the country,”
Critics have alleged that the environmental impact of these projects would be extreme. Diverting water from so many rivers would have a serious impact on the mangroves of the coastal regions and hence on fish stocks, that extra irrigation will cause salt levels to rise and that the project will take precious, and disputed, water from Bangladesh international problems.
Sunday 26 February 2012
Abu Salem may escape MCOCA net
NEW DELHI: The order on whether MCOCA charges would be dropped against underworld don Abu Salemis expected shortly as the Delhi Police agreed to withdraw them. The judgement was reserved by the Delhi High Court on February 9. The Delhi Police had also claimed that if the charges were not dropped against him, it would harm the reputation of the country internationally.
"We will spoil our credibility at international fora and this (case) will be cited as an example to show that this country does not follow it own commitments," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Haren Raval, appearing for the Delhi Police, had told judge V K Shali.
Judge Shali had reserved the judgement on February 9 on the plea of the city police seeking withdrawal of stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) against Salem. The Delhi Police had sought an urgent hearing of its plea after the Portugese High Court terminated Salem's extradition. The Portugese court had argued that India "violated" the doctrine of speciality by invoking fresh MCOCA charges against him in violation of the extradition terms agreed between two countries.
The Portuguese SC also affirmed and upheld the verdict of the HC, leaving the sole legal recourse to CBI, which is authorized to take up extradition cases, to approach the constitutional court in that country. The ASG had apprised judge Shali about the extradition terms, sequence of events and the consequences of not allowing the dropping of MCOCA against Salem in an extortion case lodged by a Delhi-based trader in 2002.
"The order of the trial court, by which the application of police to withdraw the MCOCA charges was dismissed, is deserved to be set aside," the ASG had said. Salem, along with his Bollywood starlet girlfriend Monica Bedi, was detained in Portugal on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 11, 2005, to face trial in eight cases, including the 1992 Mumbai blast case.
India, which had no extradition treaty with Portugal, gave an executive assurance to secure Salem that neither would he be awarded death penalty nor awarded a jail term in excess of 25 years nor fresh charges be invoked against him. During the arguments, ASG Raval had also cited the judgement of the Supreme Court on a petition of Salem against the order of a Mumbai special court invoking a fresh provision of the TADA against him in a case.
"Our Supreme Court had held that the extradited accused can be charged with only under those fresh provisions which provide for lesser punishment in relation to the offences for which he has been extradited," he had said. Salem's lawyer M S Khan did not oppose the plea of the police saying "in fact, I had also filed two petitions against the order of the lower court."
Portugese SC had upheld an order of Court of Appeal in Lisbon on January 14, which on Salem's petition had cancelled his extradition holding that by slapping new charges under MCOCA, which attracted death penalty, there was breach of deportation rules and Rule of Speciality.
"We will spoil our credibility at international fora and this (case) will be cited as an example to show that this country does not follow it own commitments," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Haren Raval, appearing for the Delhi Police, had told judge V K Shali.
Judge Shali had reserved the judgement on February 9 on the plea of the city police seeking withdrawal of stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) against Salem. The Delhi Police had sought an urgent hearing of its plea after the Portugese High Court terminated Salem's extradition. The Portugese court had argued that India "violated" the doctrine of speciality by invoking fresh MCOCA charges against him in violation of the extradition terms agreed between two countries.
The Portuguese SC also affirmed and upheld the verdict of the HC, leaving the sole legal recourse to CBI, which is authorized to take up extradition cases, to approach the constitutional court in that country. The ASG had apprised judge Shali about the extradition terms, sequence of events and the consequences of not allowing the dropping of MCOCA against Salem in an extortion case lodged by a Delhi-based trader in 2002.
"The order of the trial court, by which the application of police to withdraw the MCOCA charges was dismissed, is deserved to be set aside," the ASG had said. Salem, along with his Bollywood starlet girlfriend Monica Bedi, was detained in Portugal on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 11, 2005, to face trial in eight cases, including the 1992 Mumbai blast case.
India, which had no extradition treaty with Portugal, gave an executive assurance to secure Salem that neither would he be awarded death penalty nor awarded a jail term in excess of 25 years nor fresh charges be invoked against him. During the arguments, ASG Raval had also cited the judgement of the Supreme Court on a petition of Salem against the order of a Mumbai special court invoking a fresh provision of the TADA against him in a case.
"Our Supreme Court had held that the extradited accused can be charged with only under those fresh provisions which provide for lesser punishment in relation to the offences for which he has been extradited," he had said. Salem's lawyer M S Khan did not oppose the plea of the police saying "in fact, I had also filed two petitions against the order of the lower court."
Portugese SC had upheld an order of Court of Appeal in Lisbon on January 14, which on Salem's petition had cancelled his extradition holding that by slapping new charges under MCOCA, which attracted death penalty, there was breach of deportation rules and Rule of Speciality.
Italian marines to be prosecuted under Indian law: Antony
KOLLAM, February 26, 2012
Defence Minister A.K. Antony has said that steps will be taken to further improve the safety of the country's coastline and territorial waters so that fishermen feel safe when they go out to sea.
He was talking to presspersons here on Sunday evening after expressing his condolences to the family members of Valentine who was killed at sea on February 15 when Italian marines aboard the tanker Enrica Lexie opened fire.
Mr. Antony spent 15 minutes with Valentine's wife and two sons.
He said that in the changing international scenario, more vigil should be kept in coastal areas. The Indian Navy and the Coast Guard would be better equipped to meet such challenges.
In spite of a coordinated effort by 18 countries, including India, the threat from Somali pirates to maritime security seemed to be on the increase. Following tight vigil in the Gulf of Aden, the pirates were venturing into distant waters for operations and had even come up to Lakshadweep sometime ago, he said.
Role of fishermen
Steps had been taken to provide more security in the country's territorial waters. The State governments should further strengthen their coastal police stations, Mr. Antony said. Fishermen of the country also played a big role in protecting the coasts, and they had proved it several times in the recent past by alerting the country's security forces.
Centre's support
The Minister said the investigation into the killing of the two fishermen by the Italian marines was proceeding in the right direction.
The incident had occurred within the country's territorial waters. The Union government would extend all support to the State government on the issue, he said.
Mr. Antony said there would be no deviation from the government stand that the two Italian marines arrested in the case would have to be prosecuted under Indian law.
Indian courts to decide
The case would be decided by Indian courts. A decision would be taken on what should be the Central relief to the dependents of those killed in the incident, he said.
Delhi High Court upholds ‘Advocate on Record' rule
NEW DELHI, February 19, 2012
By which only lawyers who clear AoR exams can move Supreme Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld the ‘Advocate on Record' (AoR) system prevailing in the Supreme Court by which only those advocates who are qualified in the AoR examination are eligible to file petitions in the Supreme Court.
Dismissing a petition filed by an advocate Balraj Singh Malik, who is not an AoR, a Bench of acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said: “The [AoR] rule is based on intelligible differentia with objective sought to be achieved, as highlighted by the Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman, namely it is in the interest of litigating public that the practice before the apex court is regulated by way of prescribing such qualification/eligibility conditions for advocates to become ‘Advocate on Record‘ and to be entitled to act or plead.”
Pyramidal structure
The Bench said: “The court system, being pyramidal in structure, makes the Supreme Court the Court of last resort, so it is helpful to have someone who is equipped to deal with all kinds of matters where the litigant is not able to afford the senior counsel or some other counsel.”
The Bench said: “No doubt, AoR can engage a counsel other than a Senior Counsel and in that sense, every advocate has a right to argue before the Supreme Court. However, with this system, the other advocates, who may be authorised by AoR, would be an advocate who has experience and confidence of the litigant. Furthermore, there are various responsibilities cast upon the AoR, who files the case on behalf of his client and such an AoR has to have necessary qualification to act in that capacity. Prescription of these qualifications which include passing of examination therefore is not a mere formality but has laudable objective behind it.”
The petitioner contended that after the amendment to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, every advocate, as of right, could practise in all courts, including the Supreme Court, and no restriction could be imposed. The AoR rule imposed unreasonable restriction on the advocate's right to practise, he argued.
Regulate system
The Bench said: “No doubt, right to practice in the Supreme Court is conferred under Section 30 of the Advocates Act. Section 52 of the Advocates Act, however, categorically states that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the power of the Supreme Court to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution. This means that notwithstanding what is contained in the Advocates Act, Section 52 of the Act keeps the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution intact. Reading these two provisions in a harmonious way, an inescapable conclusion would be that the Apex court has the power to lay down the rules about the entitlement of persons not only to act but also to plead before it. It, thus, clearly follows that amendment of Section 30 has not altered the position, which was prevailing earlier. We are not oblivious of the situation, as highlighted by the petitioner, that there are some noises that AoR system is not working satisfactorily. There may be some truth in the same. However, if some anomalies and unhealthy practices have crept into the AoR system, the proper remedy is to find solution to rectify the same. That may not be a cause for dispensing with the system of AoR altogether. It would be more appropriate that the present practice of the AoR is regulated to ensure that they play a constructive role in justice delivery system.”
Delhi High Court Bar Association
Contact Info
Secretary Room23385562 Delhi High Court BarAssociation Office23385562 Delhi High Court Bar Room No.5 (Library) 23074079 Delhi High Court Bar Room No.1823386824, 23385853 Delhi High Court Bar Room No.1923385654, 23386848 Delhi High Court Ladies Bar Room 23386780 Delhi High Court Consultation Room23382279, 23385829 Email:info@dhcba.com
http://www.dhcba.com/
History of Delhi High Court
Initially, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which was established by a Letters Patent dated 21st March, 1919, exercised jurisdiction over the then provinces of the Punjab and Delhi. This position continued till the Indian Independence Act, 1947 when the dominions of India and Pakistan were created. The High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 established a new High Court for the territory of what was then called the East Punjab with effect from 15th August, 1947. The India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947 provided that any reference in an existing Indian law to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, be replaced by a reference to the High Court of East Punjab.The High Court of East Punjab started functioning from Shimla in a building called "Peterhoff". This building burnt down in January, 1981. When the Secretariat of the Punjab Government shifted to Chandigarh in 1954-55, the High Court also shifted to Chandigarh. The High Court of Punjab, as it is later came to be called, exercised jurisdiction over Delhi through a Circuit Bench which dealt with the cases pertaining to the Union Territory of Delhi and the Delhi Administration.
By virtue of Section 3(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, the Central Government was empowered to appoint a date by a notification in the official gazette, establishing a High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. The appointed date was 31st October, 1966. The High Court of Delhi initially exercised jurisdiction not only over the Union Territory of Delhi, but also Himachal Pradesh. The High Court of Delhi had a Himachal Pradesh Bench at Shimla in a building called Ravenswood. The High Court of Delhi continued to exercise jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh until the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 was enforced on 25th January, 1971. The High Court of Delhi was established with four Judges. They were Chief Justice K.S.Hegde, Justice I.D.Dua, Justice H.R.Khanna and Justice S.K.Kapur. The sanctioned strength of Judges of this High Court increased from time to time. Presently, the sanctioned strength of Judges of the High Court of Delhi is 29 permanent Judges and 19 Additional Judges. |
Separated wife entitled to maintenance as per husband’s financial status: Delhi High Court
New Delhi, February 26
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife, though separated, is entitled to maintenance depending on her husband's financial position.
"A life on alimony is not to be a life different from what the wife would have led if the relationship had not gone sour. The quantum of maintenance inter alia depends upon the status of the husband," a division bench of acting Chief Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said.
It rejected the argument that if a husband provided food and shelter after a separation, he owed nothing more to his wife.
"The women, even when rarely going out of the house and when the entire expense of the household was met by the husband, were still found entitled to an amount for their own spending. In certain regions, the said amount also went by the name of "Hath Kharch" (pin money)," the bench observed.
Noting that money is required to fulfill the other day-to-day needs, including that of clothing, entertainment and personal effects of the wife, the court said: "It is unbelievable that if the relations had been good, the husband if had been providing boarding and lodging, would not have provided anything further to the wife."
The court passed the judgment while raising the monthly maintenance amount of a woman, who is a housewife with no other source of income, from Rs 60,000 per month to Rs 1,50,000.
The couple, with two children, got married in 1981 and was subsequently separated, but was living in the same house. The woman moved the high court challenging a family court ruling which fixed the monthly maintenance at Rs 60,000.
In 2002, the husband had agreed to pay Rs 1,50,000 per month to his wife. However, he stopped the payments after four months and his wife approached the family court.
Declining to give further maintenance the husband, a well-qualified doctor and businessman, had contended that he was looking after all the financial needs of his wife and as such she did not require any maintenance.
He further contended that he had deposited Rs 2 crore in the court for his wife in a dispute relating to the partnership of hotel Marina, in which she had an 8 per cent share.
He also alleged that his wife also owned a 1,000 sq. yards plot in Faridabad.
The wife had predicated her claim at Rs 1,50,000 per month on the basis of the 2002 agreement, that she was not working and had no other source of income.
The bench cited a Supreme Court judgment reiterating that the test to be applied is to place the wife in the same position as she would have been if the relationship had continued.
Italian marines to be tried under Indian law: Antony
Italy’s Foreign Minister coming tomorrow to hold
talks
New Delhi/Thiruvananthapuram, February
26
Holding that the two Italian marines accused of killing two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast would be prosecuted under the Indian law, Defence Minister AK Antony today said the investigation into the case was progressing in the right direction.
Antony’s statement comes before visit of Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Maria Terzi di Sant' Agata, who is arriving in New Delhi on Tuesday to seek a resolution to the crisis arising from the killings that took place on February 15.
"The case will be proceeded under the Indian law. The judiciary in the country is independent," Antony told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram.
“The incident of shooting down of two hapless fishermen off the coast of Kollam was unfortunate and equally condemnable,” he said. "The investigation in the case was progressing in the right direction and the Kerala Government was handling it very strongly and powerfully. The Centre had extended full support to the state's initiative,” said the Defence Minister.
The arrested Italian marines — Latore Massimiliano and Salvatore Girone — have been charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
A Special Investigation Team led by Kochi commissioner, MR Ajith Kumar is probing the case. The victims — Valentine Jalastine and Ajeesh Binki — set out to sea in a boat along with nine fishermen from Neendakara fishing harbour. The two fishermen were allegedly killed by the marines of Italian ship 'Enrica Lexie'. The Italian authorities have contended that the guards fired at the fishing boat mistaking it to be a pirate vessel.
The prolonged stand-off over the issue between India and Italy threatens to cast a shadow on bilateral ties between the two countries. Italy's Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan de Mistura has already held talks with Indian officials and also met Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy to find a diplomatic solution to the row.
The Italians claim that since the incident took place in international waters, the two marines could not be tried under Indian laws. However, India has made it clear that since the incident involved an Indian vessel and two Indian nationals, the Indian law would take its course.
The Italians have indicated that they were willing pay hefty compensation to the families of the two fishermen.
The Italian Foreign Minister's visit to India was scheduled much before the incident occurred. This would be the first high-level visit from Italy since the new government was formed there in November last year, the External Affairs Ministry said.
| Sniper rifles in ship |
| n After a 12-hour search on Italian cargo ship ‘Enrica Lexie’, the Kerala Police team returned to land on Sunday morning with four suitcases containing eight gunsn Police sources confirmed there were six rifles, two sniper rifles and 24 pistols on board. The police, however, seized only the rifles and the snipersn The search and seizure operation is over and we have got what we needed, the Kerala Police said |
Holding that the two Italian marines accused of killing two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast would be prosecuted under the Indian law, Defence Minister AK Antony today said the investigation into the case was progressing in the right direction.
Antony’s statement comes before visit of Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Maria Terzi di Sant' Agata, who is arriving in New Delhi on Tuesday to seek a resolution to the crisis arising from the killings that took place on February 15.
"The case will be proceeded under the Indian law. The judiciary in the country is independent," Antony told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram.
“The incident of shooting down of two hapless fishermen off the coast of Kollam was unfortunate and equally condemnable,” he said. "The investigation in the case was progressing in the right direction and the Kerala Government was handling it very strongly and powerfully. The Centre had extended full support to the state's initiative,” said the Defence Minister.
The arrested Italian marines — Latore Massimiliano and Salvatore Girone — have been charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
A Special Investigation Team led by Kochi commissioner, MR Ajith Kumar is probing the case. The victims — Valentine Jalastine and Ajeesh Binki — set out to sea in a boat along with nine fishermen from Neendakara fishing harbour. The two fishermen were allegedly killed by the marines of Italian ship 'Enrica Lexie'. The Italian authorities have contended that the guards fired at the fishing boat mistaking it to be a pirate vessel.
The prolonged stand-off over the issue between India and Italy threatens to cast a shadow on bilateral ties between the two countries. Italy's Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan de Mistura has already held talks with Indian officials and also met Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy to find a diplomatic solution to the row.
The Italians claim that since the incident took place in international waters, the two marines could not be tried under Indian laws. However, India has made it clear that since the incident involved an Indian vessel and two Indian nationals, the Indian law would take its course.
The Italians have indicated that they were willing pay hefty compensation to the families of the two fishermen.
The Italian Foreign Minister's visit to India was scheduled much before the incident occurred. This would be the first high-level visit from Italy since the new government was formed there in November last year, the External Affairs Ministry said.
Law
Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways.
Birla Tyres`petition allowed against Punjab Government
20 years on, notification on tax quashed
Chandigarh, February 25
Chandigarh, February 25
Twenty years after the Punjab government issued a notification on tax on tyres
and tubes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed it.
Allowing
a petition filed by Birla Tyres, the Bench of Justice MM Kumar and Justice Ajay
Kumar Mittal ruled: "The notification cannot be held to be valid and is
hereby quashed. The respondents, State of Punjab and others, cannot be held
entitled to charge sales tax at 12 paise in a rupee on motor tyres and tubes
and at 8 paise in a rupee on tractor tyres and tubes from April 1, 1992 to
August 20, 1992".
Prior
to November 9, 1990, the rate of sales tax on motor tyres/tubes was 12 paise in
a rupee and 8 paise in a rupee on tractor tyres and tubes. With effect from
November 9, 1990, the Punjab government amended the notification dated December
2, 1982, and introduced a clause providing rate of tax on motor tyres and tubes
at nine paise in a rupee till March 31, 1992.
The
Bench asserted: "The respondents vide notification dated November 9, 1990,
had amended the notification dated December 2, 1982, reducing the rate from 12
paise to 9 paise in a rupee on motor tyres and tubes up to March 31, 1992, and
vide notification dated December 28, 1990, the rate of sales tax on tractor
tyres and tubes was reduced from 8 per cent to 6 per cent up to March 31, 1992,
which was later on continued up to March 31, 1994, vide notification dated
August 20, 1992.
"But,
vide notification dated December 1, 1992, the rate of 9 paise in a rupee on
motor tyres and tubes and 6 paise in a rupee on tractor tyres and tubes has
been made effective from August 20, 1992, instead of April 1, 1992, without
giving any reasonable ground for adopting such date…."
"In
view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that the
petitioners shall be liable to pay sales tax for the period from 1.4.1992 to
20.8.1992 in accordance with the notification dated August 20, 1992, and the
assessing authority shall determine the liability, if any, accordingly".
Rent control act unfair deal for landlords: Delhi High Court
Delhi high court's decision to hear a petition challenging the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has come as a shot in the arm for beleaguered landlords who have been getting paltry rents for the prime properties they let out. The landlord-tenant dispute has once again come into focus with an association of women landlords from the capital recently moving court.
With the Supreme Court tilting the balance in favour of landlords — allowing them to invoke need even for commercial properties — through a series of rulings over the past few years, the only defence still available to a tenant is the age-old DRC Act which places a ceiling on rent in the capital.
If the HC now bats for landlords while adjudicating the latest petition, one can expect swift disposal of disputes before the rent control tribunals where such cases are decided.
Until now, additional rent control (ARC) courts remained bereft of fresh cases because property owners were hesitant to take to court disputes which would drag on for years, even as the tenant enjoyed continuous and unhindered rights of occupancy over a premise. The status quo meant a property continued to be enjoyed by the tenant.
The only way a tenant can now hope to cling on to a house is by proving in court that his landlord does not actually need the property, a very difficult thing to do.
Speaking to TOI, advocate Atul Mathur, who takes up property-related disputes, said tenants were becoming increasingly indefensible now that the odds are clearly stacked in favour of landlords.
''Although it is too early to say anything definitively, since fresh cases are still at the arguments stage, but there is actually no defence left for a tenant living in a commercial property. I have myself advised three landlord clients to move court because their chances of winning have, after the SC rulings, brightened,'' Mathur confided.
Lawyers said that for the first time a tenant can be asked by a landlord to vacate his premises. Earlier, non-payment of rent or discreet subletting were the only two technical defaults committed by a tenant that allowed a landlord to take back his property.
Eviction can now be sought on need. And courts hearing such cases will witness how landlords play around with the word need, since the scope for it has been widened. More importantly, bonafide need can now be claimed not just for the owner of the property but also for his or her dependent family, elaborated another lawyer.
As petitioners before the Delhi high court, the landladies Shobha Aggarwal, Suman Jain and Seema Khandelwal argue, the DRC Act is ''an archaic legislation that needs to be struck down as unconstitutional''.
Provided the high court agrees with these women, numerous landlords in Delhi can now become hopeful about getting much higher rents for the properties that they let out.
Landlords can evict shop tenants: SC
NEW DELHI: For 50 years, tenants in shops and commercial premises in many prime areas of Delhi have had the upper hand over landlords. They lived without fear of eviction and paid a paltry rent as they were protected by laws that froze the amount negotiated decades ago.
This special protection was because the law said that a tenant could be asked to vacate only residential
premises, and not commercial property even if the premises were required for personal use. But all this has changed.
The Supreme Court has given a judgment that would help landlords evict tenants in prime commercial zones like Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, South Extension and Walled City who, in most cases, have been paying a few hundred rupees as rent for decades.
The rent law - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - was a handicap for the landlord as he could seek eviction of the tenant only from residential premises, that too provided he proved this was required for his personal need.
The attempts to evict the tenants from the shops had been frustrated for nearly 30 years as the rent law did not permit recovery of the premises let out for shops even on the ground of bonafide personal need.
The court said the restriction on eviction of tenants from commercial premises was inserted in the law 50 years ago mainly because of the limited commercial space available in the city at that time. But that was a long time back.
Now the scenario has undergone a sea change and a fairly large number of buildings and premises were now available on rent for non-residential and commercial purposes. Restricting landlords from seeking eviction of tenants from shops was no longer justified, the Bench said.
The 1995 Delhi Rent Control Act, which had a similar provision in favour of landlords, could not be notified despite receiving presidential assent as the government was pressured by the powerful traders lobby.
Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act allowed a landlord to make an application for recovery of possession of a residential premises on the ground that "the premises let out for residential purposes are required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or any other member of his family dependant on him... and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation".
The new law would now read: "That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependant on him... and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation".
Crucially, the apex court has deleted the word 'residential'. This makes the tenant eviction process apply with same rigour to rented premises - both residential and commercial.
Though the court removed the word 'residential' from Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, it tried to strike a balance by laying down that recovery of rented premises still needed the landlord to prove that he needed it for his use and lacked alternate suitable accommodation.
Reversing a full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which had refused to alter the law in favour of the landlords on the ground that it had been in force for more than 45 years, the apex court said the HC failed to see that the provision in the 1958 Act has outlived its utility.
Writing the 64-page judgment for the Bench, Justice Singhvi said the high court failed to notice the differential treatment in law for residential and commercial premises, even though the rationale for it had long ceased to exist.
Removing this anomaly and striking down the differential approach in law, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi said landlords could now seek eviction of tenants from residential as well as commercial premises on the ground of proven personal need.
Through the judgment, the court came to the rescue of the family of a landlady who wanted to demolish the premises, part of which was let out for shops. She wanted to build a new structure to accommodate a family growing in size over the years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)