* 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, April 06, 2014



Recent development in court cases,  interpretations and the intention of various parties in the cases look rather perplexing.

S.C. case (4-4-2014), according to G.N. Sridharan, is "seeking direction to LIC to implement its resolution of 2001 in terms of Delhi H.C. Order".  The Delhi H.C. order is based on the Jaipur HC Order in toto which all of us have held to be glorious and pioneering order. Even though GNS plea in Delhi HC was for 100% DA, the court relied on the Jaipur HC order which appears more comprehensive. Then, why oppose GNS IA in S.C.? Asthana was not a party in Delhi case although his cause may be of common interest. I don't know whether any question of locus standi is involved. 

To-day's (4-4-2014) blog of CH Mahadevan and BR Mehta regarding interpretation of proceedings in respect of Chandigarh contempt case makes interesting reading. Just because all the words spoken in the court are not reproduced in the order, does it make BR Mehta's presentation of what happened during the proceedings not reliable?

Can any one dispute the Jaipur HC order dt. 13-02-2014 dismissing the contempt petition on the request of the petitioners advocate seeking liberty to seek clarification of Jaipur H.C. Order? And the court granting the liberty to seek clarification? Now daring what would happen if no clarification is sought ever looks preposterous. Doesn't  seeking clarification on Jaipur HC Order indicate lack of clarity in the order,which all of us held very dear to our heart, cast a shadow on the order?

LIC advocate seized this opportunity by presenting the copy of Jaipur HC order of 13th Feb and as this court's judgment is based entirely on Jaipur HC Order and presenting himself as a personification of virtue assured the court that any clarification given by the Jaipur HC will be implemented here. This submission appears to be reasonable and appears to have been accepted by the Chandigarh Judge in adjourning the case.

I fully agree with BR Mehta's observation " LET US ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SHADOW OF HAPPENING ON 13-02-2014 AT JAIPUR HIGH COURT WILL HAVE ITS IMPACT IN ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS EVERYWHERE TILL SOME NEXT POSITIVE ORDER WHICH CAN NEUTRALISE THE SAME ".

I am writing this with VC Jain's appeal 'to think seriously' (a continuous process with me) and certainly without malice towards anyone.

T SAMPATH IYENGAR

BANGALORE.