A cordial relation between the Bar and the Bench is absolutely necessary for smooth running of the administration of justice in the courts, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna made the observation while disposing of an appeal filed by a lawyer, who had made derogatory comments against a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court.
Noting the conduct of the petitioner advocate, the high court had referred the matter to the Bar Council for taking action against him.
The advocate had approached the top court against the judgement of the high court.
For smooth running of the administration of justice in the courts, a cordial relation between the Bar and the Bench is sine qua non and is a must. No advocate is benefited by unruly behaviour in the Court.
Ultimately it spoils the atmosphere in the court room and ultimately may spoil the case of the litigant and the litigant may have to suffer for no fault of him, the bench said.
The lawyer practising in the Uttarakhand High Court tendered an unconditional apology for what happened before the high court due to which the impugned order came to be passed.
He tendered an unconditional apology and filed an affidavit undertaking before the apex court that in the future no such untoward act shall take place at his behest.
The top court then asked the lawyer to appear before the judge of the high court and tender an unconditional apology and requested the high court to take into consideration the apology.
We are happy to note that the learned single judge has shown the grace and has accepted the unconditional apology tendered on behalf of the petitioner.
By order dated December 24,2021, while accepting the unconditional apology tendered on behalf of the petitioner, the high court has recalled its earlier order, the bench said.
In that view of the matter, no further order is required to be passed by this Court, more particularly, when the learned single judge who has passed the impugned order has now recalled his earlier order by accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner.
Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the present proceedings shall stand disposed of, the bench said.
The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions for advancement of facilities for athletics as also availability of latest training infrastructure and funds to the sports persons saying there has to be individual drive.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said it was aware of the issues but cannot pass any directions to the government.
“Are you into sports? There has to be individual drive in men or women. There are people like Mirabai Chanu, Mary Kom who have risen above adversities and yet shined like anything. This cannot be done under the diktat of the court. We won’t be able to do anything. Either you withdraw or we will dismiss the petition,” the bench said.
The petition was then withdrawn.
The bench also refused to grant liberty to the petitioner to make representation before appropriate authorities and said there was no individual cause or dispute.
“We have all the sympathy and share the same views. Sorry. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the petition,” the apex court said.
The petitioner advocate Vishal Tiwari submitted that sportspersons have been participating in Olympics for several decades but results are not satisfactory and they need support and facilities from the Centre and states.
Alleging that there was arbitrary allocation of funds, the plea also sought directions for fixing accountability of the money allocated for athletics.
The Delhi High Court Friday declined to grant interim protection from arrest to Navneet Kalra, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with alleged black marketing of oxygen concentrators, agreeing with the reasons given by the trial court while denying him the relief.
A sessions court had on Thursday dismissed Kalra’s anticipatory bail plea, saying the allegations against him were serious and his custodial interrogation was required to “unearth the entire conspiracy”.
“I am persuaded by the reasons given by the trial court which is a valid ground for me not to grant any interim protection now,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said while listing the matter for hearing on May 18.
The observation came after Kalra’s lawyers — senior advocates Abhishek M Singhvi and Vikas Pahwa — urged the court to grant some interim protection if the matter was going to be adjourned till May 18 on the request of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju.
Singhvi told the court that the police was actively searching for Kalra and was visiting the homes of its relatives and close friends and it ought not to be done when the high court was hearing his plea for anticipatory bail.
He said he was not in a “begging game” with the authorities and was relying on the high court to protect his client’s rights as the police was out looking for him with a “fanaticism” as if he were a “trophy”.
When the hearing commenced on Friday afternoon, ASG Raju urged the high court to hear it on Tuesday, May 18, as he had a lot of material, like information with regard to shell companies, which he needed to place before it and would require some time.
Heavens would not fall if the matter is taken up on May 18, Raju said, adding that there was no need for giving such a preference, like hearing the case on a holiday, to Kalra as his plea for anticipatory bail is just like that of anyone else seeking the same relief.
Singhvi opposed the contention saying it was an attempt to embarrass the court.
He said one of the charges against his client was that he had overcharged for the concentrators and to investigate it, Kalra’s arrest was not required.
He said that under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013, there is a provision for adjusting the overcharged amount or refunding it.
The high court said a number of concentrators were seized from his properties and price stickers, including blank ones, were found at the site.
“Therefore, the question is would it be a violation of the DPCO 2013,” the court said, adding that if so, then can the Essential Commodities Act, under which the DPCO comes, be given the go-by.
It is Kalra’s contention the Essential Commodities Act is not applicable in the instant case as no price was fixed for oxygen concentrators imported from abroad.
The high court also asked Kalra how many concentrators were sold by him prior to seizure of the 105 units from two of his restaurants.
It also said that according to the trial court, Kalra had sold spurious and inferior concentrators at a higher price.
Singhvi said he will provide data regarding sale of the concentrators on the next date.
He also told the high court that if according to the state, the concentrators his client had sold were substandard, then why were the seized units donated to COVID care centres.
The senior lawyer also told the high court that only under ideal conditions would a concentrator give an output of 80-90 per cent, otherwise in normal conditions, it gives around 60-70 per cent.
He also said that his client did not say to any of his buyers that the equipment was of German make and added that most of the concentrators in the market are of Chinese origin,
Kalra had moved the high court for anticipatory bail on May 13 late evening after a sessions court denied him the relief.
After a hearing which went up to 10.00pm, the high court had listed the matter on Friday.
During the previous day’s hearing, the high court had asked Kalra how he could hold on the concentrators or even sell them when he did not have a valid license to manufacture, store, import or sell the same.
While the sessions court denied him anticipatory bail, a magisterial court on May 13 granted bail to an employee of upscale restaurant ‘Town Hall’, owned by Kalra, in connection with the case.
Four employees of Matrix Cellular company, including its CEO and vice president, who were also arrested in the case are also out on bail.
During a recent raid, 524 oxygen concentrators were recovered from three restaurants owned by Kalra — Khan Chacha, Nega Ju and Town Hall — and he is suspected to have left Delhi along with his family. The concentrators are crucial medical equipment used for COVID-19 patients.
Kalra had bought the concentrators from Matrix Cellular which had imported them.
On May 5, a case was registered against Kalra under Section 420 (cheating), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR, also registered under Essential Commodities Act and Epidemic Diseases Act, for black marketing of oxygen cylinders prescribes maximum punishment for seven years.PTI
Petitioner-1, victim; is the main petitioner and employee of Sanofi India Limited. Petitioner-2, Sushma Maurya is President of Awwaaz Foundation, a duly registered Ngo working for women’s empowerment. There are 8 parties in the Writ Petition.
Respondent-1 is the global Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi. Respondent-2 is incumbent Managing Director at Powai, Mumbai. Respondent-3 is the Asia-Pacific HR. Respondents 4, 5 are senior management seated at Powai, Mumbai. Respondent-6 is Compliance officer of Sanofi, Powai having submitted Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) Report. Respondent-7 is the accused sexually harassing Petitioner-1. Respondent-8 is State of Maharashtra, Department of Law and Justice;
Respondents are management personnel of Sanofi, a multinational pharmaceutical company operating globally. Sanofi produces medicines not just for India, but for its global operation, considering low cost of labour and cost of production. It employs more than 3,000 employees across India. Shares of Sanofi are quoted on the Bombay and National Stock Exchanges.
2019 annual reports, p.45 mentions “During the year 2019, the Company i.e. Sanofi received one complaint of alleged sexual harassment which was thoroughly investigated by the Internal Committee. In such matters on the recommendations of Internal Committee, appropriate disciplinary and corrective actions are taken by the Company.”
And, further DIRECTORS’ RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT, p.44 states “During the year under review, the Statutory Auditors, Cost Auditors and Secretarial Auditors have not reported any instances of frauds committed in the Company by its Officers or Employees to the Audit Committee under section 143(12) of the Act, details of which needs to be mentioned in this Report.”. These false statement in annual reports are fraud executed by Sanofi India on investors. Respondents-1 to 6 have failed in reporting evidences of bribery provided by Petitioner-1 to SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office), which are mandatory requirements for a limited company. Therefore, non-adherence to Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace, Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal Act 2013 (the “Act”) by the Respondents-foreign management brutally exploiting Indian resources for exclusive profit making; without conforming to the Act, is blatant abuse of process of the law. Respondent-1,2,3 and 6 are senior executives responsible for implementing the Act in India.
THAT, thereafter, on 09-07-2018 through email, Petitioner-1, Victim whistle-blew unethical corrupt practices of fraud, bribing distributors for increasing sales at Sanofi; wherein, cash was collected from her and other employees forcibly. Petitioner-1, Victim submitted written complaints along with video recording of bribing distributors for increasing sales; to the management. The Companies Act contains provisions to prevent corruption and fraud in companies. Section 177 of the Companies Act requires every listed company to establish a vigilance mechanism for directors and employees to report genuine concerns and to provide for adequate safeguard mechanism against the victimization of persons who use such a mechanism. Albeit, without adequate mechanism in place, Petitioner-1 was victimized sexually by Respondent-7 with the connivance of Respondent-4, and Respondent-5 (both at Senior level). And, later by Respondent-6 (ICC), who subverting justice, conclusively closed, defenestrating the entire case;
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN ICC NOT ADHERING TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE – NO INVESTIGATION, NO FRAMING CHARGES, OPEN AND SHUT CASE:
Petitioner-1, victim approached Petitioner-2, Sushma Maurya of Awwaaz Foundation in dire condition when she was feeling suicidal. Petitioner-1,Victim narrated entire incident from bribery to being sexually harassed, upon which Petitioner-2, a registered NGO working for women’s right took the initiative considering mental and harassed condition issued notice to the police station and SANOFI through their lawyer to provide legal assistance to the victim. Thereafter, Petitioner-1 approached many other private lawyers who were not willing to institute proceedings against the Pharma giant. Considering lack of initiative from lawyers, Petitioner-1 again approached Petitioner-2 insisting that the present matter be pursued with the help of her NGO lawyer who was convinced into contesting the present matter. However, after Sanofi’s false and concocted ICC report, Petitioner-1 fell sick and underwent operation due to depression, ill-health and lack of social support. Considering mental trauma and mental harassment of Petitioner-1, Petitioner-2 agreed to take initiative in present case; understanding of the entire case and various health circumstances of Petitioner-1 consumed considerable amount of time of the present lawyer. Petitioner-2 has agreed to testify whatever knowledge she has pertaining to this case in interest of justice, without prejudice towards none, The matter is before Bombay High Court.
Hacked By Kaizer Soze/Turkish Hacklab.
Vuln!! Path it now!!
A court here has granted bail to a man in a case related to February’s communal clashes in northeast Delhi, saying it is clear from the CCTV footage that he was not part of a riotous mob and was unarmed.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav granted the relief to Mohammad Mobin Ali on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 20,000 and a surety of a like amount.
“Apparently, the CCTV footage is in two parts. In the first part, the co-accused persons namely Mohammad Javed Khan, Mohammad Anas and others are clearly seen with swords, sticks etc. in their hands whereas, in the second part, the applicant (Mobin) is seen. He is clearly unarmed and appears to be very cool, calm and composed.
“From the very perusal of the CCTV footage, it is clearly apparent that the applicant does not appear to be part of a riotous mob,” the court said in its order passed on Friday.
The court directed that Mobin should maintain peace and harmony in the New Usmanpur locality and not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in the case.
It also directed him to appear before the court on each and every date of hearing in the case.
It said he should furnish his mobile phone number to the station house officer of the New Usmanpur police station upon his release from jail and install the “Aarogya Setu” mobile application on his phone.
The court, however, clarified that anything stated in the order should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as it is at the pre-cognisance stage.
During the hearing held through video-conferencing, advocate M Gulzar Ali, appearing for Mobin, told the court that there was an apparent delay of about 24 hours in lodging the FIR in the matter and that his client was not named in it.
He further contended that Mobin (45) is not in the same age group as that of the other rioters.
There were two CCTV cameras at the scene of the crime, which is quite near to the “Phool Wali Masjid”, and Mobin was merely seen coming from the mosque and going towards his house, which is in the vicinity, the lawyer said.
Special Public Prosecutor Saleem Ahmed, appearing for the state, opposed the bail plea, saying Mobin was identified by Raman, who was injured in the riots, on March 13 from the CCTV footage.
He further argued that when a proclamation under section 144 (power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was in place, Mobin should not have ventured out of his house to loiter in the streets.
The court told the public prosecutor that Mobin’s case does not appear to be similar to that of the co-accused, whose bail pleas were dismissed earlier.
Mobin was arrested for allegedly being part of an unlawful assembly, the members of which had indulged in rioting in the area. Raman was allegedly injured by the mob.
A case was registered under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 147 and 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The offences entail a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Communal clashes broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, after violence between the supporters of a new citizenship law and those opposed to it spiralled out of control, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.PTI
The Supreme Court Thursday extended the protection from any coercive action till August 31 to TV news anchor Amish Devgan in connection with the cases lodged over his alleged defamatory remark against Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti during a show telecast on June 15.
A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari took note of the fact that one of the FIRs against Devgan has been transferred from Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh to Noida in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench, during the proceedings conducted via video conferencing, said the news anchor, represented by senior lawyer Siddharth Luthra and advocate Mrinal Bharti, will have to now amend his plea accordingly and deferred the hearing to August 31.
Now the UP government will have to file its response to Devgan’s plea in which he has sought quashing of the FIRs, stay on the investigation and the protection from any coercive action for his alleged comments against the sufi saint.
The bench made clear that the interim relief of protection to Devgan, granted earlier, shall remain operative.
The apex court, while granted interim relief to Devgan, had also stayed the probe in the cases related to the June 15 telecast against the journalist.
Five FIRs have been lodged against Devgan in Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Telangana for using a derogatory term for the Sufi saint in the news debate show called Aar Paar’ on his channel on June 15.
However, he later tweeted an apology saying that he was actually referring to Muslim ruler Alauddin Khilji and inadvertently ended up naming Chisti.
As regards the interim relief, till the next date of hearing, we deem it appropriate to pass ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B) (which seek stay of investigation in pending and future FIRs and the protection from possible coercive action), the top court had said in its June 26 order.
On July 8, the interim order of June 26 was extended till August 6 and now it will remain in operation till this month end.
Issuing notices to Maharashtra, Telangana and Rajasthan, the bench had earlier asked the petitioner to make the complainants, who have lodged FIRs, as parties to his plea.
Two FIRs for the alleged offence have been registered at Ajmer and Kota in Rajasthan and one has been lodged at Bahadurpura in Hyderabad, the plea said, adding that two such FIRs have been lodged at Nanded and Pydhonie in Maharashtra.
Devgan said he has already issued a clarification through a tweet and moreover, errors cannot be construed as criminal offences.
The journalist has said the plea concerned his life and liberty.
In a well-orchestrated manner – the petitioner has been made a victim of country-wide filing of false and baseless criminal complaint and FIRs on the one hand, and on the other hand, petitioner, his family and his crew has been abused unabashedly on social media and by personal messages by unknown persons. The petitioner has also received several death threats from various anti-social elements, the plea submitted.
It said that Devgan was holding a discussion on a petition filed before the top court on his show on June 15 on the issue of the Places of Worship Special Provisions Act.
During the course of the live heated discussion one of the panellists quoted Chisti (Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti) and inadvertently, petitioner (Devgan) who wanted to refer to the historical figure Khilji(Alauddin Khilji) as a marauder, mentioned the name Chisti’ , the plea submitted.
That immediately on realising his inadvertent slip of tongue during heated debate in his news debate show petitioner tendered a clarification and clarified that the name Chisti was mentioned by error and inadvertently, it said.
Devgan tweeted the clarification on his personal Twitter account on the intervening night of June 16-17 and moreover, the channel carried a video clarification featuring the journalist, the plea said.
One of the FIRs was lodged at Pydhonie police station in Mumbai against Devgan for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by referring to Chisti in derogatory terms in the TV programme on the complaint of Arif Razvi, general secretary of the Raza Academy.PTI
The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court Tuesday it would file a status report detailing the steps taken by the authorities on encounter killings of gangster Vikas Dubey and his associates.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said it may consider appointing a committee headed by a former judge to probe the encounters of Dubey and his aides as also the killing of eight Uttar Pradesh policemen by the gangster.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, told the bench that he would file the status report by July 16.
The apex court said it would hear on July 20 the pleas seeking court-monitored probe into the encounters of Dubey and his associates.
Eight policemen, including DSP Devendra Mishra, were ambushed in Bikru village in Chaubeypur area of Kanpur when they were going to arrest Dubey and fell to bullets fired from rooftops shortly after midnight on July 3.
Dubey was killed in an encounter on the morning of July 10 when a police vehicle carrying him from Ujjain to Kanpur met with an accident and he tried to escape from the spot in Bhauti area, the police had said.
Recent Comments