The Supreme Court Justice Indira Banerjee recuses herself from hearing the plea filed by a Judicial Officer challenging the Madras High Court order which had rejected his plea seeking revocation of suspension order and for enhanced allowance during the suspension period. 

The matter was listed for Wednesday before the Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi which has directed to list the matter before the bench where Justice Indira Banerjee not a member and ordered to list this matter next week.

The petition has been filed by G. Raja who is facing several charges including of moral turpitude, involving his connivance with his brother to undertake commercial activities while still in service, assets and funds grossly disproportionate to the petitioner’s known sources of income and the like. He has been suspended pursuant to a notice dated December 30, 2019.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs Uttar Pradesh govt to reply in two weeks on defects in assistant teacher recruitment examination

The High Court had observed that, “it has to be accepted that a person facing serious charges involving moral turpitude should not be allowed to resume work pending the inquiry into his conduct.”

The High Court had further observed that though the petitioner is free to urge to increase his subsistence allowance and seek early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, but he cannot cite such grounds either for his suspension to be revoked or to be reinstated honourably. It is totally the employers call to ensure to enhance allowance during suspension and expeditious disciplinary proceedings.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court the petitioner has approached the Apex court through the present SLP.

The Supreme Court has upheld the order of Karnataka HC which had dismissed the appeal of a loan defaulter and refused to quash the proceeding initiated against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner submitted before the Apex Court that the disputed cheque was never issued by him, in fact, at the time of taking loan, the said respondents had mortgaged the property of value 9 Crore, to which the SC replied, “we do not find any error in the order passed by HC.”

The bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian has refused to pass any directions in the matter.

The appeal was filed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to quash and set aside the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court in its order dated March 30, 2021, had refused to quash the proceedings while stating that as per the prima facie material before the court would disclose that the cheque was presented and bounced, for which notice was issued and thereafter when the demand was not complied, the cause of action arose to invoke Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner.

The Counsel for the petitioner before the High Court had submitted that he was under financial distress, he even produced documents of ITR to show he has suffered huge loss due to the collapse of real estate market. The petitioner also contended that the properties are pledged in the favour of respondents and they are having civil right to seek appropriate remedy, but instead they had filed criminal proceedings, to which the court had stated that the fact as to whether the petitioner is having financial distress or not has to be considered by the Learned Magistrate only during the course of the trial. The petitioner’s counsel also submitted before the Court that he was not in position to appear before the Court since he was almost on death bed by showing the medical records.

The High Court had said that the same may be presented before the learned Magistrate contesting with regard to the financial distress and also the health condition of the petitioner.

Read Also: Supreme Court refuses 6 months moratorium on repayment of bank dues amid second wave of Covid-19

The High Court had further held that, “I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner. the judgement which have been quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on the merits with regard to the financial distress and not at the stage of issuance of process against the petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of C.r.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the appeal made to the Chief Justice to decide on a letter demanding the transfer of a case to another judge, due to allegations of discrimination. The High Court had said that doing so would interfere with the work of the Chief Justice.

Richa Singh, a resident of Gurugram, has a case of marital dispute under consideration in the High Court. In January 2020, Singh wrote to the Chief Justice alleging charges of discrimination against the Judge under whom her marital case was pending and requested the transfer of the case to another judge.

The appeal was filed in a single bench of the High Court after the Chief Justice did not decide on the letter’s demand. In the appeal, it was prayed to the Single Bench to order the Chief Justice to decide on the demand letter of the petitioner at the administrative level.

The single bench dismissed the petition as inappropriate for hearing. The order of a single bench was then challenged in the double bench. The bench rejected the plea of ​​the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Jaswant Singh dismissed the plea and said the Chief Justice decides which case will be heard. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and, in this case, ordering him to take a decision on the demand to change judge would be interfering with his work.

Also Read: Implications of Section 69 of IT Act 2000 R/w IT rules 2009 imposed on the citizens of India vis-a-vis privacy guaranteed under Article 21

Also, there is no such legal provision that empowers the petitioner to give a demand letter to the Chief Justice to change the judge. When there is no provision, the writ petition cannot be heard. Even if such a directive was issued, it would not set the right example for the future, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure over an inordinate delay of 437 days in filing of an appeal by the Centre against an Allahabad High Court order which had granted bail to a businessman from whose registered electric godown, a banned chemical, Acetic Anhydride, was found used in manufacturing of heroin.

A three-judge bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose directed the Centre to come up with an explanation for this inordinate delay in filing an appeal against such a sensitive matter.

The Apex Court noted in its order

“taking into consideration the inordinate delay of 437 days in filing the special leave petition in a sensitive matter like the present one, we are not satisfied with the averments of the petitioner – Union of India in the application for condonation of delay, as they have not indicated in the application who is responsible for such an inordinate delay.”

“Unless and until the petitioner comes before us with some material indicating that appropriate action has been taken against the erring officers/officials, we are not inclined to condone the said delay or to entertain the instant special leave petition,” said the top court.

Also Read: Arnab Goswami WhatsApp chat: Sanjay Raut raises issue in Rajya Sabha, says Centre protecting him

The court has granted two weeks’ time to the centre to file an affidavit indicating what action they have taken against the erring officers/officials for filing the present SLP with such an inordinate delay.

Yesterday, another bench of the Supreme Court after getting infuriated had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Centre for filing an appeal after the delay of 532 days and 6616 days from the original order.

Also Read: No blanket permission to any agency to intercept, monitor phones, internet: Centre tells Delhi High Court

The Court had noted in its order that,

“We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for some time and must note that the only error which seems to have occurred in the impugned order is of noticing that it is not an illiterate litigant because the manner in which the Government is prosecuting its appeal reflects nothing better! The mighty Government of India is manned with large legal departments having numerous officers and Advocates. The excuse given for the delay is, to say the least, preposterous.”

Read the order here;

New Delhi (ILNS): Hours after the special CBI court pronounced the verdict on Babri Masjid demolition case, acquitting all 32 accused, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it would appeal against the ruling in the high court.

Special CBI judge Surendra Kumar Yadav in Lucknow, in his 2,000-page judgment, said that the evidences against the accused were not strong enough and the Babri Mosque demolition incident was not preplanned. 

The verdict which is both historic as well as contentious has gathered mixed response from different communities and the political parties.

Muslim leaders, who were associated with the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title suits, said that they would challenge the special CBI court’s verdict.

Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) convener Zafaryab Jilani said that he was not ‘satisfied’ with the verdict and that it would be challenged in the high court. Jilani said that the CBI failed to put up a strong case despite there being enough evidence against the BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, who had been charged with conspiracy to bring down the disputed structure.

There were police officers, government officials and senior journalists who appeared as witnesses. What about their testimony? The court should have said whether these eyewitnesses were lying

the board’s lawyer, Zafaryab Jilani, told the media.

Moreover, several political leaders believe that the verdict is likely to add to the feeling of discontent and marginalisation among India’s 200-million Muslim minority. The Congress party’s communication department head Randeep Surjewala called it an “egregious violation of the law” that ran counter to “the constitutional spirit.”

Sitaram Yehchury, from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said it was “a complete travesty of Justice”. Reportedly, MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that he was “pained” at the verdict and called it “a black day for [the] judiciary”.

Read Also: Lawyers ask: Rule against soliciting work only for lawyers, not applicable to judges?

“Was it some magic that the masjid got demolished? It seems violent acts pay politically,” he said.

Nevertheless, after the verdict was announced the BJP leaders have hailed the special court judgment and were seen in a celebratory mood.

-ILNS