SC decries ‘tarikh pe tarikh’ culture in courts!

New Delhi: Vexed with the unending number of adjournments asked for and liberally granted in the cases pending before the courts, a three-Judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India has come down heavily on such situation.

Perhaps rightly echoing the public sentiment the apex court has urged the legal fraternity to co-operate with the judiciary to reduce the backlog of cases in different courts. The bench was baffled to see that at times the advocates seek early hearing of a matter and when the same is granted, the very advocates ask for the adjournment!

The situation apparently is worrisome. The adage, justice delayed is justice denied, exactly speaks about such a pathetic stateof affairs.The solution to the problem is, to limit the number of adjournments statutorily. In the name of doing Justice we cannot make the justice a sacrificial goat! Happily, a beginning has already been made in this direction by limiting the number of adjournments in a commercial court and prescribing a time frame for the final conclusion of a case. Now, the proposed BharatiyaNyay Samhita has also enhanced the scope of time-bound justice delivery system to other civil matters. If all the stakeholders put in sincere and honest efforts to ensure the speedy disposal of cases, it is possible to reduce the back log of cases across the country significantly in a near future.

In fact, the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of all people living in the country. Article 21 in its judicial interpretation includes the right of speedy trial also. In other democracies such as U.K, France, U.S.A etc, there are specific laws governing the time frame for the disposal of cases by the courts. The time limit, of course, varies depending upon the gravity or complexity of a case from a few hours to 180-300 days. Some countries have also provisions to declare an accused not guilty if for no fault of him the trial is not completed within the particular time frame prescribed by law. Not only that the laws in such cases permit the accused to claim damages or compensation from the State for its failure to begin, conduct and conclude the trial within the legal time frame and thereby causing him avoidable physical and mental harm.

In sum, it is high time that our law makers seriously ponder over this issue which directly hits upon the novel concept of the Rule of Law.

P&H HC IMPOSES Rs.1L COST ON THE LAWYER FOR CONCEALING FACTS

The Punjab & Haryana High Court took a serious view of not mentioning some material facts of a previous unsuccessful bail petition and the contempt of court by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's advocate was imposed cost of Rsone lakh and directed the lawyer to deposit the same in the account of the High Court Lawyers ' Welfare Association.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil while dismissing the second anticipatory bail petition came down heavily on the petitioner for deliberately suppressing the fact of an earlier order which had directed him to surrender before the trial court and apply for the regular bail. The High Court in that order had also directed the trial court to dispose of the bail order expeditiously within three days.

The case titled, Gulab Singh Vs. State of Haryana decided on October 17 also stated that such an exemplary cost was imposed so that in future nobody would dare repeat such behaviour.

DELHI HC RESTRAINS PARISTONE TM FOR PRESSURE COOKER

In a case filed by the Prestige brand pressure cooker, TTK Prestige Ltd against Arjun Ram, the manufacturer of Paristone brand of the same product, Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has granted a restraint order in favour of the petitioner.

The order of October 19 stated that the brand name used by the respondent was deceptively similar. The fonts and colour scheme adopted by the respondent brand, Paristone too, were identical to the trademark, Prestige, the court added.

WIFE'S PHONE TAPPING VIOLATES HER PRIVACY: CHH'GARHHC

In a case titled, Asha Lata SoniVs.DurgeshSoni decided on October 5, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey of the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that allowing the husband's application under Section 311 of CrPC along with the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act by a Family Court to read the phone conversation of wife tapped without her consent was the violation of her right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

To set aside the order of the Family Court permitting the husband to produce the wife's phone conversation, the court relied upon the Supreme Court 's judgements in PUCL Vs Union of India, X Vs. Hospital Z and Anurima. Sunil Mehta.

ONLY SC CAN GRANT DIVORCE ON GROUND OF IRREATRIVABLE BREAK DOWN: DELHI HC

In a case entitled, Bhawna Sharma Vs. Shyam Sundar Sharma, the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain has by its judgement dated October 30 held that the Family Court does not have power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Such power has been vested only with the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,the bench added.