The Bench and the Bar

Delhi high court rapped the government yesterday for failing to produce the contracts it has entered into with companies like facebook and google reported The Economic Times.

The government had sought time to place the contracts with the court in May and July but has still not produced them. This irked the bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva who posed questions to the government.

“Why are you not filing them (contract)? Why are you hiding them from us? Why aren’t you placing it? What is the hesitation? Why aren’t you doing it? It’s been five months since our 7 May, 2015 direction”

The court was hearing a petition filed by K N Govindacharya, a politician who alleged that the government has become the biggest “marketing agent” for these companies. The petition also says that the government is transferring its intellectual property rights to these companies by way of these contracts while the government is maintaining that the contracts are standard form in nature it was reported.

The next date of hearing in the matter is 28 October 2015 before which the government would have to share the contracts it has entered with facebook, youtube and google.

A court here on Wednesday granted bail to Delhi’s former law minister Somnath Bharti, who is accused in a domestic violence case filed against him by his wife Lipika Mitra.

Additional Sessions Judge Anil Kumar released Bharti on bail asking him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and a surety of the like amount.

Bharti, who surrendered to police last Monday and was arrested, was named in an FIR filed on 10 September following a 10 June complaint by Lipika, who said he had been abusing her since their marriage in 2010.

She claimed he used to beat and torture her and once even tried to kill her.

Bharti, who was booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) -- related to attempt to murder, cruelty towards wife, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, criminal breach of trust, attempt to cause miscarriage without woman’s consent, cheating and criminal intimidation -- was on the run soon after police registered an FIR against him.

To be updated.

A Chhatisgarh district bar association has debarred lawyers enrolled “outside” from practicing in Jagdalpur courts, reported Bhaskar.

The Bastar district bar Association in Chhatisgarh’s Jagdalpur town allegedly passed a resolution to debar the lawyers, in its general body meeting, but a copy of this resolution was not provided to tribal rights NGO JagLAG (Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group) when it asked for it through written requests, added the report.

JagLAG represents Jagdalpur region tribals in defending false criminal charges. The lawyers of the NGO, who are registered with the Bar Council of Delhi and practice in multiple jurisdictions, have alleged harassment at the hands of the local police and the Bastar bar.

The NGO was founded in 2013 by Delhi University law alumni Isha Khandelwal and Shalini Gera and TISC Mumbai post graduates Parijata Bharadwaj and Rupesh Kumar. It is supported by senior lawyers sponsoring monthly fellowships and offering free counsel to its clients, reported Mint.

The founders fear that although they are currently fighting harassment and repeatedly producing their enrolment documents before the local police and the bar, they wouldn’t be able to afford the costs involved in fighting other bar associations if they decide to follow the Bastar bar’s stance, added Mint.

Khaitan Sud & Partners (KSP) advised the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) led consortium on infusing Rs 226.28 crores ($35m) in TRN Energy. TRN was advised in house.

KSP partner Tanuj Sud and associates Henna Vadhera and Aiswarja Mohanty acted for REC REC’s infusion will be used to meet the gap in implementation of the 600 MW thermal power project by TRN in Chhatigarh, according to KSP’s press release.

TRN is a subsidiary of ABC India which holds a 74 per cent stake in the power company.

Heated exchanges were witnessed in Court No 6 of the Supreme Court between 2 and 4 pm in the hearing of the case of Nagrik chetna manch vs UOI The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, who argued in favour of modification of the Court’s 11 August order clashed with SA Shyam Divan, who represented the petitioners in the main case, and opposed the modification plea.

Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras high court passed radical directions on a petition asking the court to curb entry of persons with criminal antecedents into the legal profession and to maintain purity of law courses.

On certain days, the Indian litigant knows better than to hold the courts to their official calendar of working days: at least 100 days have already been lost this year across various Indian courts to strikes by advocates.

In the Extra-Judicial Execution of Victim Families Association vs Union of India, which came up before the bench of justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit at Court 9 on Monday at 2.30 p.m., the amicus curiae, Menaka Guruswamy, proposed the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the six fake encounters involving seven victims in Manipur, as a result of action by the security forces.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the central and Delhi governments as to why pollution compensatory charge be not levied on the trucks and commercial vehicles entering national capital and further contributing to already alarming air pollution in the city.

A court today extended, till 19 October, the judicial custody of Delhi’s former law minister Somnath Bharti in a domestic violence case filed by his wife Lipika Mitra.

A magistrate’s court remanded Bharti in 14 days judicial custody after he was presented before it after expiry of his one-day judicial custody.

Meanwhile Bharti moved his bail application before a sessions court. It will be heard on Tuesday.

Bharti surrendered to police on last Monday evening and was arrested. He was named in an FIR filed on 10 September following a 10 June complaint by his wife who said he had been abusing her since their marriage in 2010.

The Supreme Court today asked the chief justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to form a three-judge bench to examine the validity of penal provisions that bans slaughtering of cattle and sale of beef in the state.

Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy put on hold the order of the Jammu bench of the high court directing the police chief in the state to enforce the Ranbir penal code provisions banning beef in the state.

The court passed the order after noting the conflicting orders passed by the Jammu and Srinagar bench of the high court.

The Jammu bench had asked the police chief to enforce the ban while the Srinagar bench had issued notice challenging the validity of the provision banning beef.

The Srinagar bench had said that if the state legislature wanted to scrap or amend these provisions, then the pendency of the matter before it will not come in the way of the assembly.