The new Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu has put an end to the practice of orally seeking case adjournments in the Supreme Court, by making it mandatory to circulate an advance written request for adjournments, to the court and the opposing counsel.
A Supreme Court circular from yesterday stated:
“[…] henceforth the counsel/Parties-in-person seeking adjournment of the mattering in the Final Cause List, shall now submit a letter/request, after getting the same noted by the counsel for the other side with Assistant Registrar (Listing) for circulating the same to the Hon’ble Court at least two days in Advance from the appointed date of listing/hearing.”
The circular added that letters seeking adjournments of matters listed on Monday would be accepted till 11am on the preceding Saturday and those for Friday will be accepted until 3pm on the preceding Wednesday.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
ad
ILI
I want to submit that while filing SLP26229/08 (Chandigarh Housing Board v/s Prem Singh), converted into CA3039/09 the appellant has cleverly concealed the following documents which were part of NCDRC,New Delhi.
a) Stay Order granted by DB of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 12950/92 (Prem Singh vs CHB) wherein recovery of enhanced amount was stayed till further orders. Price was enhanced from Rs 4 to 6.25 lacs again tentatively
b) CM 10677/93 filed in this writ by CHB for vacation of stay order before Single Bench
c) Single Bench disposed the matter illegally in terms of CWP 10511/92 without interfering with the stay order. The stay order is still continuing. Subsequent orders become NULL and VOID under law. In CWP 10511 CHB themselves admitted that price of Rs 6.25 lacs is wrong and exact price works out to be Rs 5.5 lacs ±2%
d) Order delivered in CWP 5179/94 (Prem Singh vs CHB). CWP 5179 was filed against change of scheme from Self financing to Hire Purchase and again revising the price to Rs 5,61,400. CHB was directed to re-determine the price and issue fresh allotment letter under original scheme of SFS. Order was neither challenged nor complied.
Respondent was allotted first floor flat at Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, in a draw of lots held in Nov,1989. Rs 2,80,000 deposited against a demand of Rs 3,60,000 raised by CHB by Nov.1991. Advertised price was Rs 4 lacs. When it was time to deliver physical possession of flats (1992) CHB floated another scheme of 672 flats on the same land (60 acres) which was meant for scheme floated in May 1989 (1608 flats).
Approached CHB many times but possession not delivered. Complaint 354/03 before District forum directed CHB to issue allotment letter under SFS and deliver possession of flat. First appeal 61/2005 before State Commission dismissed. Revision Petition 3131/2005 before National commission also dismissed.
The possession of flat has not been delivered for the last 24 years even after paying 78% of original demand and the Apex court has granted stay order and admitted a totally defective SLP. The rental value of flat is around 25-30 thousand per month with further interest which the respondent could have earned had the possession delivered.. For CHB, events start only from 15.3.96 and are trying to thrust the order delivered in LPA 792 of 1995 filed against CWP 1042 of 1994 (K.K.Kalsi v/s CHB). Prem Singh is not a party in CWP 1042 of 1994. An order binds parties to the proceeding is the most important aspect of India Judiciary which Justice G.S.Sighvi didn’t know. The possession is being delayed only in the garb of litigation.
Information taken under RTI ACT, speaks volume of corruption in CHB.
One vacant flat was allotted to a person at Rs 5,10,400/- in Oct.1994 who was on the waiting list and has not even deposited Rs 2.6 lacs which others allottees has deposited. No Profit was charged from him being a CHB employee and from others CHB is recovering profit of Rs 51,034 besides 10% departmental charges which is totally illegal.
CHB is recovering the entire cost of 60 acres of land i.e. land under flats, roads, open spaces and its development from 2280 allotees at Rs 600/- per sq yd which was transferred at Rs 180/-
i.e. 60 x 4840 x 180=Rs 52272000 +24200000(Dev.cost) –15922000(Comm.,other Area) = Rs 60550000. Land under flats 101521.2 x 600 = Rs 60912720.
Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 as extended to UT, Chandigarh bars CHB to act as office of profit centre.
When CA3039/09 came up for hearing on 20.8.2015 before bench of Justice J.Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, the appellant cleverly didn’t appeared and was dismissed for non-prosecution of orders and counsel for appellant got the matter adjourned by a week by orally mentioning the case next day.
Further I want to inform you that the order which was supposed to be rendered in Revision Petition RP-3131/2005 of NCDRC, New Delhi was given in First Appeal FA-3131/2005 and the order received by respondent-complainant in RP-3131/2005 appears to be a forged order.
In this order respondent-complainant was directed to pay interest on 3rd installment of Rs 80,000/- from 10.5.1992 for a flat which has not been delivered till date. A consumer court will never give such orders. Further price of flat was enhanced from Rs 4 to 6.25 lacs on 20.4.1992 i.e. three weeks before the due date and there after it has gone into litigation.
Had the respondent-complainant paid Rs 80,000/- on 10.5.1992 the Board was bound to deliver physical possession of flat whereas the construction of flats was completed in the middle of 1994. By Nov.1991 the Board has already recovered Rs 2.8 lacs i.e. 70% of price of flat and earning interest on this amount without giving any benefit on Rs 2.8 lacs .
Under rules and regulations possession of the flat is to be released when 25% of price has been received. The function of Board is to construct the flats from the Budget allocated to them by Chandigarh Administration and after constructing these built up flats are disposed of by way of sale or on hire-purchase basis.
How Judges are ignoring these facts is to be investigated. The Judges are sitting so high they can’t see what is happening on ground level.
The order appealed before Apex Court was FA-3131/2005 which was stayed being a harsh order and later it was replaced with RP-3131/2005. No court could have stayed the order given in RP-3131/2005.
Forwarding this message to Secretary General, Supreme Court of India will not yield any result. I humbly request you to forward this message only to The Chief Justice of India, personal email ID only and order a Judicial Inquiry into the matter.
on 2.9.2015 by oral mentioning the case has been adjourned by 10 days by sending proxy advocates.
Amarjit Singh (LR)
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first