Loss of Law Suit Documents a Serious Matter: Bombay HC

Source : Times of India

The Bombay High Court has observed that it is necessary to conduct an inquiry before allowing re-construction of lost or untraceable law suit documents if issues disputing the application for reconstruction are raised by any party to the suit. 

The HC observed that loss of record of suit papers from the court premises was "undoubtedly a very serious matter" as mentioned by Additional Solicitor General Darius Khambata, especially since the rules require the administrative office to "permanently preserve" certain documents at the HC which is a court of record. 

Justice RM Sawant made this observation while passing orders in an application challenging the re-construction of a 1969 property suit. An MP government company had alleged that the re-construction was done at the behest of a law firm which was not authorized to represent the persons who had originally filed the suit that involves a high-stake property dispute. This contention was strongly opposed by lawyers for the other side. 

The judge who ordered an inquiry into the re-construction in the case at hand however also observed to avoid situations where disputes and challenges are raised later, "the office would have to devise some modality so that the record is maintained for posterity, and at least the decree/orders disposing of proceedings are maintained separately in a manner, beyond the scope of any wrong doing or mischief." 

The reconstruction of record of court documents is governed by a 1995 circular, which was issued precisely to cover situations of loss of record. "If there is a consensus between the parties the reconstruction would pose no problems, but if there is an issue between the parties on any ground, in my view, it is necessary to conduct an enquiry about the reasons by giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard and only then decide whether or not to order a reconstruction."

Panel Accuses Justice Dinakaran of Delaying Inquiry

Source : Indlaw

The Supreme Court panel, constituted to probe allegations against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, has accused him of deliberately delaying the inquiry into the land grabbing case and judicial misconduct.

Justice Dinakaran is facing impeachment proceedings on the charges of corruption and land grabbing. He is due to retire in May next year.

The panel, headed by Justice Aftab Alam, yesterday rejected his application demanding that senior counsel P P Rao should be removed from the panel as he was a member of delegation, who met then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan against his elevation to the Supreme Court. 

Two members of the panel, while rejecting his application, said Justice Dinakaran was wasting the time of the panel with the aim of deliberately delaying the inquiry against him as the panel has to submit the report by June 23 this year. 

The panel, which includes Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J S Khehar, also rejected another application filed by Justice Dinakaran for supply of documents. It ruled that the charges have already been supplied to him and granted him a day's time to file his response to the charges. The panel will proceed with the inquiry tomorrow. 

The panel also told Mr Dinakaran to uphold the sanctity of the high office he is holding and co-operate in the inquiry.

Justice Dinakaran, whose elevation to the apex court was put on hold after the allegation came to light, was shifted from Karnataka High Court to Sikkim High Court.

Aarushi Murder Case : Relief for Talwars

Source : Indlaw

In a reprieve for the parents of Aarushi Talwar, the Supreme Court today stayed till July 12 the proceedings in the trial court in Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case. 

The Talwars are the main accused in the case.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar granted four weeks time to petitioner Dr Rajesh Talwar and his wife Dr Nupur Talwar to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI. The probe agency has stated that both the parents are the only accused in the case. 

There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the two showing their involvement in the murder of their 14-year-old daughter and their domestic help Hemraj. 

A ninth standard student of DPS Noida, Aarushi was found murdered on May 15, 2008 at her Noida residence and the body of Hemraj was recovered two days later from the roof of the flat. 

Earlier, the CBI had filed a closure report that there was no sufficient evidence to charge sheet the dentist couple in the case though Dr Rajesh Talwar is the prime suspect. 

Dr Talwar approached Ghaziabad special CBI judge court against the closure demanding further investigation. 

The trial court rejected the closure report and summoned both the parents to face the trial in the double murder case.

Rajesh Talwar 'misled' the Judiciary, CBI tells Apex Court

Source : Times of India

In another twist to the Aarushi -Hemraj double murder case, the CBI has accused dentist Rajesh Talwar of forging documents, concealing facts and misleading the Supreme Court to get relief from prosecution in the trial court. 

In an affidavit filed before the apex court, CBI's superintendent Neelabh Kishore alleged that Rajesh, in his appeal against the trial court, had deliberately taken a false plea that he was released on bail in July 2008 which was totally contrary to facts. 

A bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar which took on record the affidavit after it was mentioned by the CBI counsel said it would take up the issue on Monday when the matter would come up for hearing. 

The CBI clarified that Rajesh was released after the agency did not seek extension of his judicial custody as at that time the investigators did not find sufficient material against him. 

Seeking dismissal of the plea by Rajesh and his dentist wife Nupur challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the murders, the CBI alleged the bail application annexed along with the appeal was forged as no such document existed. 

Contrary to the dentist's claim that he had moved a bail application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the CBI said that the trial court had ordered Rajesh's release after the agency filed an application under Section 169 of CrPc. 

The agency had then told the special court that it did not have sufficient evidence against him at that stage. 

The CBI further pointed out that Rajesh's bail claim was not mentioned in Nupur's separate appeal, challenging the same criminal proceedings against the Talwars. 

The CBI while referring to the "discrepancy" said Nupur had stated clearly that her husband was set free after CBI did not seek his further remand. 

According to the agency the trial court on March 3 issued bailable warrants that were executed against the couple on March 10, but the Talwars did not disclose this fact before the SC.