____________BASUDEB DAS__________
I have gone through the submissions of Sri B R Mehta, Panchkula from 'CHRONICLE' and I endorse his views fully. As a matter of fact, I was expressing such views to my pensioner friends locally here in the last week. Now I want to be more specific on these issues.
1. A united forum is urgently needed to take the issue of our legal victory to the people’s representatives all over the country through a common memorandum to raise question in parliament (both lower and upper) to demand decision of Finance Minister whether LIC/GOI will obey court orders or going as of now to delay/by pass the court of law so that the issue comes to masses through media.
2. Petition for transfer of all pension suits filed in different courts to Supreme Court for a final decision.
3. After 12th August’2013 dismissal of LIC’s SLP by Supreme Court, LIC has not yet filed fresh SLP as per direction of the Supreme Court and is following delaying practice. I suggest to file a curative petition to the same bench for a fresh order to combat LIC/GOI’s delaying practice.
To read full text, please click below.
I have gone through the submissions of Sri B R Mehta, Panchkula from CHRONICLE and I endorse his views fully. As a matter of fact, I was expressing such views to my pensioner friends locally here in the last week. Now I want to be more specific on these issues.
1. A united forum is urgently needed to take the issue of our legal victory to the people’s representatives all over the country through a common memorandum to raise question in parliament (both lower and upper) to demand decision of Finance Minister whether LIC/GOI will obey court orders or going as of now to delay/by pass the court of law so that the issue comes to masses through media.
2. Petition for transfer of all pension suits filed in different courts to Supreme Court for a final decision in terms of following provision of the Constitution……
“Article 139A(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts, and the Supreme Court is satisfied, on its own motion, or on an application made by the Attorney-General for India or by a party to any such case, that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself.”
3. After 12th August’2013 dismissal of LIC’s SLP by Supreme Court, LIC has not yet filed fresh SLP as per direction of the Supreme Court and is following delaying practice. I suggest to file a curative petition to the same bench for a fresh order to combat LIC/GOI’s delaying practice as per legal provision as follows :
“CURATIVE PETITION:
As laid down by this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurrah
vs. Ashok Hurrah 2002 (4) SCC 388, even after dismissal of a review
petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, Supreme Court, may accept a curative petition and reconsider its judgment/order, in
exercise of its inherent powers in order to prevent abuse of its process,
to cure gross miscarriage of justice and such a petition can be filed
only if a Senior Advocate certifies that it meets the requirements of this
case. Such a petition is to be first circulated, in chambers, before a
Bench comprising of three senior most judges and such serving judges
who were members of the Bench which passed the judgment/order,
subject matter of the petition.”
4. In respect of passing order on LIC’s SLP on 8th August, 2013 , Defence commented that they were not heard. To avoid this situation, my suggestion is to file a Caveat in Supreme Court in terms of following legal provision :
Caveat is a two line application addressed to the registrar, filled in any of the High Court or Supreme Court of India mentioning the details of any matter which is instituted or expected to be instituted in a suit/appeal/proceeding before the said court where the applicant/caveator request that no order with regard to the said matter may be passed without giving notice to the applicant/caveator. The advantage of such application/caveat is to avoid any ex-parte order in any matter which the other party may try to get at the time of filling the matter in any of the courts.
Order XVIII, Rules 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are reproduced below :"2. Where a petition is expected to be lodged, or has been lodged, which does not relate to any pending appeal of which the record has been registered in the Registry of the Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such petition may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the petition, if at the time of the lodging of the caveat such petition has not yet been lodged, and, if and when the petition has been lodged, to require the petitioner to serve him with copy of the petition and to furnish him, at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the petitioner in support of his petition. The caveator shall forthwith, after lodging his caveat, give notice thereof to the petitioner, if the petition has been lodged.
3. Where a petition is lodged in the matter of any pending appeal of which the record has been registered in the Registry of the Court, the petitioner shall serve any party who has entered an appearance in the appeal, with a copy of such petition and the party so served shall thereupon be entitled to require the petitioner to furnish him at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the petitioner in support of his petition."
“Section 148A of Civil Procedure Code. Right to lodge a caveat.
(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceedings instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.
(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the person by whom the caveat has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveator) shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due, on the person by whom the application has been or is expected to be, made, under sub-section (1).
(3) Where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court, shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator.
(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator at the caveator’s expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed by him in support of the application.
(5) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), such caveat shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged unless the application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made before the expiry of the said period.”
(Basudeb Das)