* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN THE CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE THE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Sunday, January 31, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty




This is a simple factual narration of what 

exactly happened in the Court on 29 Jan 2016. 
My responses and comments on the false 
report released by Mr KML Asthana as well 
as some uninformed remarks/predictions 
made by Mr H K Aggarwal, will come through 
Part 2 of this Post.

At the cost of repetition, I state that what we mentioned on 22 Jan 2016 (and again on 28th and got permission to file) was an additional Affidavit in the IA No 5 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013, which was already on Board. The additional Affidavit was to bring on record the colossal mischief being committed by LIC with active support by the Delhi Respondent in LIC’s CA 9223 of 2013.

Although the matter was listed at Sl No 55, as hoped by us, it reached for hearing well before the Court was to rise for the day. As expected, LIC and GNS Federation took the matter so seriously that Mr Sriram Panchu, the Sr Advocate for GNS Federation as well as Mr Ranjit Kumar, the Solicitor General of India, were personally present in the Court to oppose my Affidavit. Mr RK Singh, KML’s Counsel was also there (though he was not a party to the matter before the Court on that day).

Two gentlemen from Bhopal and KML’s Delhi representative were there (and met me too with their questions). Two Associates of Mr Gopal Jain, Sr Advocate appearing for Hyderabad, besides Mr Jay Savla and his Associate were there too.

When my item reached at about 12.30 PM, (in the absence of our Sr Advocate, who was caught in a matter in another Court) the SGI vehemently opposed the Hyderabad Association’s move (the Additional Affidavit) as according to him, an Intervener cannot make any plea and added that he wants to file a reply against my I A No 5 itself. GNS Counsel joined the chorus in full support. All this was exactly on expected lines.

The non-availability of my Sr Counsel when my item reached for hearing and the inability of his Junior Associates in effectively facing the onslaught by the Solicitor General of India was certainly a set back to me and to the Hyderabad Association’s bold initiative to put the case back on track. I had reported this fact briefly immediately after I came out of the Court.

Upon Justice Dipak Misra announcing that my matter listed for that day would also be heard on the next date of hearing of the main CAs, there was detailed discussion on what should be the next date. Someone pointed out that the matters were already listed for 2nd & 3rd Feb 2016, but multiple voices were heard that the said dates do not suit them. Then 10 Feb was considered but turned down. As is always the case, any date suggested or that comes up for consideration, does not suit somebody or other. This drama repeated on 29th also and 10th March was the final choice.

THAT ‘IT IS FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND THAT THE MATTER WAS PENDING FOR LONG’ WERE THE COMMENTS FROM THE BENCH.

As I said already, the absence of our Sr Counsel at the proper moment, was indeed a

set back to my efforts but the Court’s sympathetic observations were certainly my gain. I will conclude the Part 1 of this Post, with a more serious factual input on what more had happened during the hearing of my item on 29th Jan 2016.

While the Solicitor General of India and the Sr Advocate for GNS Federation were on their feet, Justice Misra made a specific remark intervening in the arguments that ‘as we look at this matter, the issue before us is whether the LIC through its Board can take its own decisions and implement or it needs Government Approval for the same’. I was not surprised but I noticed with concern that the SGI as well as the Sr. Advocate of GNS Federation - both jumped to fully endorse the observation of the Bench responding: ‘that is exactly the issue My Lord’.

To me it is all OMINOUS.

(To be continued)