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

Friday, April 01, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty


Dear Editor,

Some genuine doubts and well-meaning queries

I came across a couple of well-meaning queries in the PC on yesterday’s developments in the Supreme Court. I am able to answer them as they pertain to facts.

1. Was a reference to Delhi High Court (instead of disposal by SC itself) not resisted?

Ans. It was stoutly and repeatedly opposed by Mr Nidhesh Gupta. He offered to have the matters given a short adjournment, so that ‘we will file an Affidavit or a Petition under Art 32 with necessary amended prayers, keeping the observations made by your Lordship’. NG also highlighted the inevitable additional delay in the matter involving Petitioners who are in their eighties. Not agreed to because, the points of law vehemently raised by LIC Counsel should be addressed and resolved at the original stage and not in the Appeals for the first time. Plus it was an escape route to overcome LIC Counsel’s strong objection that HC gave an ‘out of the hat’ Order. As far as we are concerned, we got a fresh lease of life and can try to put the derailed vehicle back on track and make it move.

2. Appendix IV is also included in reference to Delhi HC.?

Ans: Yes, That actually is the main reference. It was opposed by NG. But in vain. When it was being discussed, lot of confusion prevailed. It was referred because of the confusion created by LIC Counsel. Even now it can be a problem area because; I heard NG mentioning that we have no quarrel with it. Our grievance is elsewhere. I am waiting for Mr Mahadevan’s interpretation.