To Honour One’s Debts With A Few Pieces Of Gold

This is an article in IE about the former PM who passed away recently. It talks about how the gold of the country was mortgaged to ensure that a default didn’t occur and the courage the former PM displayed in taking this action.

Here is the link to the IE article.

____________________________________

Advertisements

Failure To Give Reasons Is Denial Of Justice: SC

Here is the judgment: Right To Reason Judgement- Jun 2007

Here is what the Supreme Court said:

• Giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration
• Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a system
• Reasons at least indicate an application of mind

Here is the article from the Hindu

__________________________

_____________________________________________________

A Warning To Bloggers: Contempt Of Court

SC sentences man for contempt of court:

The Supreme Court has sentenced a person to two months imprisonment found guilty of using derogatory and contemptuous language against the Supreme Court and High court judges.A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain, while sentencing Appu Banik in a judgement observed “There can be no quarrel with the proposition that anyone who intends to tarnish the image of judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking the reputation of judges the ultimate victim is the institution. The day the consumers of justice lose faith in the institution, that would be the darkest day for mankind. The importance of judiciary needs no reiteration.” The court also found the apology tendered by the contemenor as not genuine because he wanted to justify his statement against Supreme Court judges as well as Guahati High court judges. The court also noted, “The right to criticize an opinion of a court to take issue with it upon its conclusion as to a legal proposition or question its conception of the facts, so long as such criticism are made in goodwill and are ordinarily in decent and respectful language and are not designed to wilfully or maliciously misrepresent the position of court or tend to bring it into disrespect or lessen the respect due to the authority to which a court is entitled can not be questioned.” The court concluded by observing ” Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of democracy. If people lose faith in justice imparted by a court of law, the entire democratic setup would crumble down.’ UNI AKS/SC GP RP HT1800(UNI)

______________________________

Calcutta HC: No Alimony For Leaving Hubbies On Flimsy Grounds

Folks,
Here is the judgment. It is a large file (1.4Mb): No Alimony For Leaving Hubbies On Flimsy Grounds

_______________

TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Kolkata: Here is one for the harassed husbands’ club. If a woman leaves her husband’s home on “flimsy grounds”, she is not entitled to maintenance, the Calcutta High Court has ruled.
On Thursday, the HC set aside a lower court’s order and asked a Baranagar youth to stop paying his estranged wife a monthly allowance, after judging that she had left her husband’s home “on flimsy grounds”. The landmark judgment is one of those rare cases where the husband gets reprieve in a case under the stringent section 498A, which is meant to prevent harassment of women but is sometimes exploited by the fair sex for unfair ends. The ruling came as a relief for Baranagar’s Partha Pratim Banik who was locked in a bruising battle with his estranged wife, Arundhati. Their marriage had not been a happy one and they had frequent quarrels. According to sources, Arundhati left Partha’s home suddenly one morning, taking along their fouryear-old son, and filed a case against her husband and inlaws under section 498A for “physical and mental torture”. Later, she claimed in court that Partha had cheated her by claiming he was a computer engineer whereas he was a “computer mechanic”.
A Barrackpore court granted her plea and directed Partha to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs 1,700 — Rs 1,000 for the boy and Rs 700 for Arundhati. Partha appealed against th e order in high court. The case came up for its final hearing on Thursday. Partha’s counsel Koushik Dey said that the allegations against Partha were false and that Arundhati had left her home voluntarily without any concrete reason. He cited section 4 of 125 CrPC, which states that a wife who refuses to stay with her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to a maintenance allowance. Dey also claimed that Partha was willing to take Arundhati back home, but she had refused.

___________________________________________