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

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Chandigarh HC developments

Dear Editor,

LIC IS VIRTUALLY FIXED ON ITS COVER UP OPERATION

Our Pensioner colleagues may remember that on 16.02 2016, LIC had successfully misled the High Court to cover up its faulty calculations for depositing the amount in the HC Registry. It's Counsel had the cheek to verbally describe the short payment as interest being paid to 10 Petitioners. Court directed the amount be deposited in the Registry within One Week


Pending compliance by LIC, we filed a Miscellaneous Application last week which is listed for today and heard by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. We prayed that the LIC be directed to submit detailed calculations of the amount of Rs 1,29,278/- purporting to be towards INTEREST and also be called upon to pay the same to the rest of the Petitioners.

It is learnt that LIC had on 25 Feb offered to deposit the sum of Rs 1,29,278/- which was rejected by the Registrar for being late by Two days. It then moved an Application to the Court seeking condonation of the delay of TWO DAYS and for directions to the Registrar for accepting the Deposit. We have a copy of the Application which is yet to be disposed of by the Court.
 
LIC Counsel, as usual tried to get our Application disposed of without any directions. Our (NEW) Counsel pressed for directions and succeeded. Upon LIC Counsel pleading that they have already said what needs to be said and has nothing to add, we insisted 'in that case, pay similar amount to others also' here came the climax in today's drama. LIC Counsel again blurted out, 'interest is payable to only those 10 and not others'. Justice Jain ordered 'state that in the reply'. The trap is complete. Self-dug due to sheer arrogance. I think the Court understood how it was brazenly misled.

Counsel tried the last but a powerful trick. 'My Lord, this matter was adjourned sine die' implying 'what is all this about'?. Judge retorted, 'I know. They filed an application with a prayer and you are directed to reply.' 

The matter is posted to 5/5/2016. 
I was present during the hearing to assist the Petitioners and the new Counsel. 

M Sreenivasa Murty