SIR
SOME REMARKS ARE TO BE MADE WHETHER THEY ARE THE NEED OF THE DAY OR NOT. ASTHANA IS TO BE ATTACKED WHETHER HE DOES GOOD OR NOT AND TO COVER OUR OWN IGNORANCE. WHEN OTHER SLPS ARE ALREADY TAGGED WHERE WAS THE NEED TO MAKE A MENTION IN THOSE SLPS.
IT MUST ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT SO FAR THERE IS NO ORDER OF CLUBBING THE CHANDIGARH SLP WITH ME, I AM NOT PARTY TO IT. DELHI HC HAS BEEN CLUBBED BUT I HAVE NO RECORD OR NOTICE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HOW COULD I HAVE MADE A MENTION ABOUT THEM? BUT IT HAS TO BE TOLD THAT IN SPITE OF REQUESTS AND APPLICATION MADE IN THE SC TO PROVIDE ME A COPY OF DELHI HC SLP THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME AND STILL YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFAME ME, WHY THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME. WITHOUT SLP I CANNOT BE BLAMED.
SIMILARLY A COPY OF THE APPLICATION MOVED BY HYDERABAD UNIT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS. YOUR STAND IS NOT THAT CLEAR, WHY LIC WAS MADE TO APPEAR ON THE NEXT DAY BY GIVING NOTICE FOR MENTION WHEN ALREADY THE DATE HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE COURT?
KML ASTHANA
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Seetha And Kishore <rbkseetha@yahoo.com> wrote:
THANKS TO LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE...
Here're some comments :
"ON SH. ASTHANA'S APPLICATION - HEARING OF CASES IN SC ON 12TH NOVEMBER, 2014. Thanks Dear Sh Gangadharan,You have an image of a neutral editor."
HK Aggarwal."KML Acts - Thanks to LIC PC. In any case my stand is fully vindicated that Mentioning is possible, necessary and is actually done. Only regret is it could have been done better, by not trying to limit the Final Hearing to only his cases. SC has already decided to tag all appeals together whether KML likes or not. They will also be heard together. He has no control on that, blissfully."M. Srinivasa Murty.Earlier Sampath Iyengar had written to us: "IT IS GOOD NEWS THAT CHRONICLE HAS TAKEN UP THE CAUSE OF MENTIONING IN SC WITH ASTHANAJI. VERY HAPPY. Yes a debate is wholely inappropriate at this juncture."