Will gratify babus as 'common courtesy': Essar to SC

The Essar group told a bench headed by justice TS Thakur of Supreme Court that there is “nothing illegal or improper” in politicians and bureaucrats making job requests to them and that certain favours to government servants are “common courtesies extended by corporate houses” in a counter affidavit filed last week in a Public Interest Litigation by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) reported The Indian Express.

A whistleblower in the company had leaked the company’s internal communications leading to the PIL

The company defended itself by claiming that meeting of MPs and civil servants with its official was allowed in a democracy and the job seekers given on requests by politicians and bureaucrats had prescribed qualifications and were otherwise also eligible for appointments.

The petition demands CBI enquiry and framing of guidelines to regulate relationships of big corporate groups with individuals in positions of power and influence.

Lawyer sues #AamirKhan for sedition

A sedition case was filed against Bollywood actor-producer Aamir Khan and his wife Kiran Rao on Wednesday in a Bihar court based on his statement on increasing intolerance in the country.

Lawyer Sudhir Kumar Ojha filed the sedition case in the chief judicial magistrate court in Muzaffarpur district.

“I have filed a sedition case against Aamir Khan and his wife Kiran Rao over their statement that intolerance has increased in the country, as it created bad environment and has defamed the country,” Ojha said.

At an awards event in New Delhi on Monday, Aamir spoke of “growing despondency” in India for the last six to eight months.

He said: “When I sit at home and talk to Kiran, for the first time she said, ‘Should we move out of India?’ Now that’s a very disastrous and a big comment to make to me.”

His statement drew widespread criticism even as many defended him.

Ojha said the court has accepted his complaint for hearing later this week.

Meanwhile, Aamir on Wednesday clarified his stance on “intolerance”, saying he and his wife Kiran Rao love India and won’t leave the country.

He added: “Anyone implying the opposite has either not seen my interview or is deliberately trying to distort what I have said.”

Lawyer lands client unfavourable orders due to 'striking' absence

Lawyer _strike_s are illegal, said the Madras high court while refusing to set aside a proceeding against a man who had challenged the proceeding on the ground that it took place in the absence of his striking lawyer, reported PTI.

The high court’s Madurai bench of justices R Sudhakar and VM Velumani said: “The protest, if any, can be by giving press statement, TV interviews etc that could be given outside court. Even carrying placards, wearing black bands, banners, going on dharna, procession should be done outside and away from the court.”

The man had appealed to the high court to quash the 28 September disciplinary proceedings against him by a lower court on the ground that his lawyer was participating in a collective court boycott observed that day, and was not present to represent him in court.

Suspended Madras lawyer toll rises to 35 now; 10 more queued up

The suspension of 20 more errant lawyers by the_Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry_, as reported by the Times of India takes the toll of Madras lawyers suspended recently from practicing in any court or tribunal, to 35.

Among the latest 20 suspended advocates are 10 who laid siege to the court of Madras high court chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on 14 September.

10 more lawyers of the court, not among the suspended 20, maybe awaiting action over their misbehaviour with the Central Industrial Security Force officers deployed at the court who, the lawyers claim, had filmed the frisking of a woman advocate.

The _Bar Council of India (BCI) _has reportedly said that following its September 2015 precedent of direct action against the lawyers if the state bar council fails to act stringently, it may again take direct action in the present case as well.

SC admits alleged sexual offender's taped phone conversation in defence

Taped telephonic conversation was admitted in defence evidence, in an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, in a child sexual abuse case’ trial on Monday, reported the Times of India.

A Supreme Court bench of justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant admitted the CD produced by the alleged sexual offender who claimed that the phone conversation recorded in it depicted that he was wrongfully framed for the offence, owing to revenge in a lingering family property dispute.

The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana high court had rejected his application for producing the phone-recorded evidence. He had also pleaded with the trial court to get the CD tested for authenticity, by a forensic laboratory, and match it with voice samples taken from the persons featuring in the conversation.

Reversing the stand of the lower courts, the Supreme Court said the CD produced by the accused can be treated as a document under the Evidence Act and observed: “On a document filed by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In our opinion, the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application to play the compact disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny, and to get it sent to the forensic science laboratory by the defence.”

Obseving that as the accused is in jail he would not have any intention to delay the trial, the court ordered the police to place the compact disc on record and get it examined by a forensic laboratory. However, the bail application of the accused was rejected due to delay.

Mooting Premier League 6

Latest comments

view more comments...