Thursday, October 9, 2014

SC rejects PIL for judges' post-retirement cooling-off period


The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking cooling-off period for the retired judges of the apex court before they take up next assignment.
The issue of cooling-off period is being debated by the legal fraternity after former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivanm accepted the governorship of Kerala shortly after his retirement.
The petition argued that a retired judge of the apex court cannot practice before any court in the country and judges accepting to work with the government poorly reflected on the independence of judiciary.
The apex court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu, Justice SA Bobde and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the plea by the petitioner Ali Bangalore alias Muhammed Ali that any such engagement by the retired judges with the government, directly or indirectly influenced the working of the judiciary and its independence.
Counsel for petitioner Muhammed Ali told the court the former judges accepting assignment with the government was not proper as it directly or indirectly influenced the working of the judiciary and its independence - which is the basic feature of the constitution.
Counsel referred to various newspapers reports, including that of the Law Commission, in support of his contention.
Interestingly, on his last working day in the Supreme Court, former Chief Justice RM Lodha advocated two years’ cooling-off period after retirement before the judges of the higher judiciary could pick up any assignment with the government.

ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதம் அதிகார விதிகளை மீறிய ஒன்றாகும் மேல் முறையீட்டு மனுவில் ஜெயலலிதா தகவல்

தினத் தந்திபெங்களூர், வியாழன் , அக்டோபர் 09,2014, 12:27 PM

ஜெயலலிதா ரூ.66 கோடி சொத்து குவித்ததாக குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்ட வழக்கில் அவருக்கு பெங்களூர் சிறப்பு கோர்ட்டு 4 ஆண்டுகள் சிறை தண்டனையும், ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதமும் விதித்தது.

இந்த தீர்ப்பை எதிர்த்து ஜெயலலிதா பெங்களூரில் உள்ள கர்நாடகா ஐகோர்ட்டில் மேல் முறையீடு செய்துள்ளார். அந்த மேல் முறையீட்டில், வழக்கு விசாரணை முழுமையாக நடைபெறவில்லை. சொத்து மதிப்பு கணக்கீடு அதிகமாக காட்டப்பட்டுள்ளது’ என்பது உள்பட பல்வேறு அம்சங்களை ஜெயலலிதா சுட்டிக்காட்டி உள்ளார்.

பெங்களூர் சிறப்புக் கோர்ட்டு வழங்கியுள்ள தண்டனையை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும். ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதம் என்பது ஏற்கத்தக்கதல்ல என்றும் ஜெயலலிதா தனது மேல் முறையீட்டு மனுவில் கூறியுள்ளார். அந்த மனுவில் அவர் மேலும் கூறி இருப்பதாவது:-

என் மீதான குற்றச்சாட் டுக்களில் தீர்ப்பளித்த பெங்களூர் சிறப்பு கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதி எனக்கு 100 கோடி ரூபாஅபராதமாக விதித்துள்ளார். இது ஒரு அசாதாரணமான தீர்ப்பாம். இதுவரை நடைமுறையில் இல்லாதது.

மற்றொரு வகையில் பாத்தால் எனக்கு விதிக்கப் பட்டுள்ள 100 கோடி ரூபா அபராதம் முற்றிலும் அதிகார விதிகளை மீறிய ஒன்றாகும். ஏனெனில் என் மீது ரூ.66 கோடி சொத்து சேர்த்ததாக குற்றம் சுமத்தியுள்ளனர். ஆனால் அதற்கு இரு மடங்கு அபராதம் விதித்து நீதிபதி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

இந்த வழக்கில் நீதிபதி இப்படி ஒரு அபராதத்தை விதித்து உத்தரவிட முடியாது. இது சட்ட அதிகார விதிகளை மீறியதாக உள்ளது. எனவே இந்த உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும்.

எனக்கு 100 கோடி ரூபா அபராதம் விதித்து இருப்பது, என் மீது விரோதமும், கடும் வெறுப்பையும் நீதிபதி கொண்டிருப்பதையே காட்டுவதாக உள்ளது. அவர் ஒரு நோக்கத்துடன் இல்லா விட்டாலும், அவர் உத்தரவு இதையே காட்டுகிறது. மேலும் ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதத் தொகையை எப்படி செலுத்துவது என்று உத்தரவிடுவதிலும் நீதிபதி தவறு செய்துள்ளார். அபராதத் தொகை எப்படி செலுத்தப்பட வேண்டும் என்று கூற அவருக்கு அதிகாரம் இல்லை.

சொத்து குவித்ததாக கூறப்பட்ட குற்றச்சாட்டுகளில் பெரும்பாலும் இதர வைப்பு முதலீடுகள் என்னால் செய்யப்பட்டவை அல்ல. என்னிடம் பெரிய அளவில் பணம் கை இருப்பும் இல்லை.அவையெல்லாம் வேறு நபர்கள் பெயர்களில் உள்ளது. அப்படி இருக்கும் போ நான் மட்டுமே ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதத்தை செலுத்த வேண்டும் என்று உத்தரவிடப்பட்டுள்ளது. இது சட்ட ரீதியாக சரியானது அல்ல.

மேலும் 7040 கிராம் தங்கம் எனக்கு உள்ளதாக கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. நீதிபதி தன் தீர்ப்பில் அந்த தங்கத்தை பற்றி குறிப்பிடவே இல்லை.அப்படி இருக்கும் போது ரூ.100 கோடி அபராதத் தொகை, அந்த தங்க நகைகளில் இருந்து ஈடுகட்ட முடியும் என்று எப்படி சொல்ல முடியும்?

என் மீதான வழக்கு பெங்களூர் சிறப்புக் கோர்ட்டில் நடத்தப்பட்டதற்கு கர்நாடக அரசு ரூ.5 கோடி செலவு செய்திருப்பதாக நீதிபதி தன் தீர்ப்பில் கூறி உள்ளார். இந்த 5 கோடி ரூபா செலவை நான் கர்நாடக அரசுக்கு கொடுக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் நீதிபதி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.இது தவறான தீர்ப்பாகும் இந்த உத்தரவில் இருந்து எனக்கு விலக்கு அளிக்க வேண்டும். ஏனெனில் குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவரிடம் இருந்து ஒரு போதும் செலவுத் தொகையை பெற முடியாது.

மேலும் இந்த விஷயத்தில் சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டு தெளிவாக சில உத்தரவுகளை பிறப்பித்துள்ளது. எனவே சிறப்பு கோர்ட்டு நீதிபதியின் உத்தரவு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டு அறிவுறுத்தலுக்கு எதிராக உள்ளது.இவ்வாறு ஜெயலலிதா தன் மேல் முறையீட்டு மனுவில் கூறியுள்ளார். இந்த மனு மீதான விசாரணை வருகிற 27- தேதி (திங்கட்கிழமை) பெங்களூர் ஐகோர்ட்டில் நடைபெற உள்ளது.

 

Madras HC demands uninterrupted power in courts

The Madras High Court granted two weeks’ time to the Law Secretary to file a counter on a plea seeking a direction to take steps to provide generators or inverters in every court in the state for uninterrupted power.
It also directed the Law Secretary to deposit Rs 5000 with the mediation centre. When the matter came up, the government pleader again sought time for filing the counter.
The First Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sathyanarayanan, which granted the time with costs to the Law Secretary, warned, “If the affidavit is not filed within two weeks, the Principal Secretary concerned shall remain present in court with records on the next hearing date.”
The bench then posted the matter for further hearing to November 3. The petition was filed by Chennai advocate Chitra Velu. On August 7, the bench had directed the government pleader to obtain instructions as to what steps have been taken in pursuance to the communication addressed by the court Registrar General.
It had also directed the Law Secretary to inform the court through an affidavit within two weeks from that day on the steps taken or envisaged in the matter of providing generators or inverters to courts

Kochadaiiyan Runs Into Tax Trouble


 08th Oct 2014 06:05 AM


CHENNAI: The Egmore Economic Offences Court on Tuesday directed the Triplicane police to conduct preliminary inquiry for any cognizable offence and file a case, if any, against the producers of Kochadaiiyan  in connection with the alleged illegal collection of entertainment tax by the makers of the movie.
Petitioner K J Saravanan, an advocate, stated in his petition that he watched the movie in Chennai on August 12, for which the ticket cost Rs 120, inclusive of entertainment tax. But later he had come to know that the movie had been exempted from entertainment tax by the Commercial Taxes Department, as the name of the movie was in Tamil. The producers of the movie had cheated the general public by collecting entertainment tax and made illegal gain, he charged in the petition.
Saravanan contended that the Commercial Taxes Department, which is the regulatory authority in tax collection, had failed to prevent the illegal tax collection by the producers. He had filed a complaint with the Director General of Police in this regard through registered post, but no action was taken so far, he added.
Judge S Sivasubramanian observed that the court had found prima facie grounds to proceed against the accused in accordance with law and that the court was inclined to forward the complaint to the Inspector of Police, Triplicane, for necessary action.
The judge further directed the Triplicane Inspector to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the information revealed any cognizable offence based on the complaint by the petitioner, and register a case if any and file a final report to the court.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Auditors’ query forces BOI to declare Gupta Coal loans as NPA


TOI 1 Oct 2014
Nagpur: The city-based Gupta Group is turning out to be another vexed loan case for the banks. While lenders are yet to finalize a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) proposal for two group companies, Gupta Coal India Limited (GCIL), which has the biggest loan of over 2,000 crore, has been declared a non-performing asset (NPA) by Bank of India (BOI) for its share of the debt.

BOI is the leader of a consortium of over half a dozen lending agencies with exposure in GCIL. However, the account was only classified as NPA after BOI auditors raised an objection. BOI's individual loan to GCIL stands at over 550 crore.

GCIL is a coal trading company also engaged in imports. Most of the other consortium banks continue to keep it as a standard asset, saying that the payment has been regular. Sources in BOI say it was in June that the account was finally classified as NPA. Though the bank tried its best to treat it as a standard asset, the auditors did not agree.


Now, with the auditors having raised objections, there is little chance of considering a CDR proposal for this company, which was in the offing to tide over this financial crisis faced by the Gupta Group.

The Gupta group is headed by Padmesh Gupta, a prominent businessman from the city. TOI had sent him a text message seeking his comments, but it remained unanswered.

A large part of the GCIL loan is a cash credit limit, apart from letters of credit (L/C) and bank guarantee. The latter make up non-fund-based loans, which are to the tune of Rs490 crore, say sources. It has been learnt that the auditors had questioned the method on the basis of which the limits were sanctioned. Insiders say the company's credit limit should not have gone beyond 220 crore but the total outstanding ended up crossing over 550 crore.

One of the main features of the loan package was that the non-fund-based loans were convertible into fund-based. With a letter of credit, the company can purchase goods from the vendor with the bank directly paying the vendor. However, the bank's dues have to be cleared within 90 days. If there is a provision to change non-fund-based loans like L/C to fund-based, on non-payment after 90 days, the cash credit limit can be extended proportionately. After this, funds are drawn from
the limit to pay back the dues on L/C.

So, it becomes a part of the larger loan, which does not become NPA so long as the interest is served.

This facility is generally provided when the borrower has a longer realization cycle. But it can also be a convenient method to avoid an account from becoming NPA. If the defaulted amount on L/C becomes part of the larger loan, only interest has to be paid to keep the account as standard, said a chartered accountant engaged in project finance.

A senior officer in BOI who is monitoring the case admitted that the account was classified as NPA following the audit objection. There was an issue related to the limits that were calculated. "The bank has gone by the laid down norms, though it was not correct as per the auditors," the officer said, not wishing to be named. However, another top official in this bank said there are certain instances of diversion of funds too.

Was Jayalalithaa let down by her team of lawyers?

Former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa was denied bail by the Karnataka HC. PTI
 FP Staff  Oct 8, 2014 14:57 IST

With the Karnataka High Court rejecting former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa's bail petition, her legal counsel, including senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, has come in for criticism by several legal experts for their handling of her bail plea.
This report in the Times of India quotes a senior legal expert as saying that the legal team of Jayalalithaa acted like 'novices', questioning the counsels move to approach the court registrar after a judge had earlier adjourned Jayalalithaa's bail petition.


And with the Karnataka High Court rejecting Jayalalithaa's bail plea on Tuesday, the counsel's decision to seek bail for all four accused at the same time also evoked criticism from senior lawyers, who, asquoted by the Times of India, were of the opinion that if Jaya had sought bail alone, there were more chances of her being granted bail and the three other accused could have benefited later by citing her example.
Another senior legal officer had this to say:
Their decision to seek bail for all four, including the relatively young and healthy V N Sudhakaran, simultaneously defies logic," a veteran prosecutor of a central law enforcement agency told TOI. "If a case involves more than one accused, it is not uncommon practice among lawyers to move the case of the fittest among all for bail first," he said. "In this case, they ought to have first bailed out Jayalalithaa, who had age, health and societal status on her side."
While Jethmalani as well as counsels for Sasikala and Sudhakaran questioned the trial court's verdict convicting them in the case, stating that the order was incorrect as 'the very basis of its evaluation of assets was flawed', HC Justice AV Chandrashekhara appeared to be in no mood to grant Jayalalithaa bail, observing that corruption amounted to a violation of human rights and led to economic imbalance.
His decision to deny bail could well be based on a series of recent Supreme Court orders that have shown no leniency towards cases of corruption among government officials.
Among those cases that the verdict could have been based on was a recent May judgement,  relating to a case involving BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and CBI Director, Ranjit Sinha, when a Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice of India RM Lodha declared that 'corruption is an enemy of the nation', as this report in The Hindu states.
The verdict, though, could not have been worse for supporters of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa, who have been protesting across the state of Tamil Nadu.
On Tuesday afternoon, when Jayalalithaa's bail plea came up for hearing at the Karnataka HC, supporters gathered at the party office in Chennai as well as at areas around the High Court, where section 144 has been imposed. At a little before 4 pm, when media channels reported that Jayalalithaa had been granted conditional bail, firecrackers were lit and wailing supporters were seen erupting in joy. But their happiness was short lived. Within the next half hour, while the HC judge completed reading out his verdict, it was known that Jayalalithaa was denied bail and would continue to remain in prison.
Soon, angry supporters resorted to violence, attacking businesses and vehicles owned by residents of the neighbouring state.
This article in the The Indian Express reports how journalists in the courtroom began informing their newsrooms about the verdict, even before it was read out.
"As the judge began dictating his order — noting at first the SPP’s stand — many of those present in the court were typing the message “bail granted” on their phones or passing on similar messages to others standing outside the hall. In the 10 minutes that the judge was dictating his orders, news spread that Jayalalithaa had been granted conditional bail. Many of the supporters broke into a jig outside the court premises."
Jayalalithaa's counsel is now likely to move the Supreme Court as early as Wednesday, challenging the High Court's decision to deny the former CM bail. But this decision has also come in for criticism with senior advocates comparing it to the likes of printing a cinema poster.