ASTHANA'S COMMENTS
ABOUT HC ORDER DATED 20-5-13
ABOUT HC ORDER DATED 20-5-13
IT IS A SURPRISING ORDER. IT IS FULLY AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE.
 |
| CONFUSED ? |
- HE IS RELYING ON THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2011 THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY SC BY ORDER DATED 17/10/2012.
- HE HAS TAKEN THE ORDER DATED 15/4/2013 TOTALLY INCORRECTLY AS IF MY PRAYER WAS THAT SC SHOULD DIRECT LIC TO DEPOSIT THE BALANCE MONEY AND GET THE STAY.
- HE HAS KEPT THE CONTEMPT PETITION PENDING TILL DISPOSAL OF SLP WHILE I HAD GIVEN THE RULING THAT UNLESS SPECIFIC STAY ORDER IS GRANTED IN APPEAL THE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT STAY BEFORE THE LOWER COURT.
- HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE DUES.
- BY KEEPING THE CONTEMPT PETITION PENDING HE HAS GRANTED STAY TO LIC BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY.
- HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE PENDING BUT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THE PAYMENT MADE WITHOUT DELAY.
WHEN THE MATTER WAS ON APPLICATION HE HAS NOT MADE ANY MENTION OF THE THREE APPLICATIONS.
KML ASTHANA