Joginder Singh Toor

LOK Sabha speaker Som Nath Chatterjee and west Bengal assembly speaker Hasim Abdul Halim have felt deeply concerned about corruption in the judiciary and how it was undermining the confidence of the people in this pillar of democracy.

While addressing the Jam packed big hall of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, in a very subtle manner spoke about the sensitive issues like corruption in judiciary. he said that it was a tragedy and a matter of grave agony over the recent developments in this high court. He made it clear that more appalling than the issue of questioning the judges in the matter was acceptance of corruption in the judiciary by the people including the Bar He asserted that the Bar and the general public should take upon themselves the task of identifying the “black sheep” in all fields, including the judiciary. He stressed on maintaining the purity of the system.

Chatterjee expressed his concern that development was “shocking” but “nobody is apparently shocked over the issue of questioning the Judges, and that is all the more shocking” he asserted. Apparently convinced that the Bar could play a constructive part in protecting the judiciary and that the role of lawyers went beyond the identification of the ‘back sheep’. They should come forward and get rid of the infirmities.

Lok Sabha Speaker Som Nath Chatterjee along with West Bengal Speaker Hasim Abdul Halim visited the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association at a very crucial juncture, when the High Court Bar was discussing since morning, the consequence of a very disappointing incident, indicating a nexus between some lawyers and judges involving delivery of an amount of Rs.15 lakh at the door steps of a high court judge which sent shock waves in judicial, legal and public circles.

The story

On the evening of August 13, office clerk of Sanjeev Bansal, Additional Advocate General, and Haryana delivered a bag full of money containing Rs.15 lakh at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. There is controversy on facts whether the money was delivered to the guard posted outside the residence or to the clerk of the Hon’ble Judge when she was an advocate. The money having come to the knowledge of many at the residence was reported to the police and the clerk as well as Additional Advocate General was hauled up.

An excuse was extended that the clerk was to deliver the money at the house of one Nirmal Singh in Sector 18 for handing over to him the earnest money for a property deal but because of the fact that clerk Parkash Ram was more familiar with the names of the Judges so he mistakenly went to the house of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur and wrongly delivered the money at her door steps. The clerk while handing over the bag to the security guard posted out side the residence of the Judge told him that it was from Delhi and was to be given inside. The guard, in turn, informed the staff posted at the Judge’s residence and it was duly taken inside by staffer Amrik Singh.

Nirmal Singh when questioned by the police denied any connection with the money or any property deal.

An excuse then came from the side of Bansal that he had gone to Delhi and had, launch with one Ravinder Singh, a hotelier at Delhi, who handed him over Rs.15 lakh to be delivered to Justice Nirmal Yadav (another Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court).

He then added another excuse that while he was coming back from Delhi to Chandigarh, he received a call from Ravinder Singh that the money should reach Justice Nirmal Yadav before 8.30 P.M. As he was away from Chandigarh and could not reach before 8.30 PM, he made a call to his wife, who is also an advocate, and who has been a junior of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, before her elevation to the Bench, and asked his wife to send Rs.15 lakh from home, to the house of Justice Nirmal Yadav, who wrongly sent the clerk to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur.

On further inquiry by the Chandigarh police, as to the fact whether the money, required to be sent to Justice Nirmal Yadav was actually sent or not. In reply it was told that another amount of Rs.15 lakh had been sent to Justice Nirmal Yadav.

The alleged kingpin Ravinder Singh, the hotelier of Delhi, having close contacts with number of Judges, lawyers and politicians, could not be arrested for a considerable period. The clerk of Sh. Sanjeev Bansal who delivered the money at Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s house, is believed to have told the police that he had no misunderstanding and that he correctly delivered the money as directed.

he episode went mercurial day by day. During investigations, it is known, that the Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal was in constant touch with the son of a Supreme Court Judge practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also with a senior High Court Judge as, immediately after the registration of the case, both exchanged about 15 telephone calls within a period of three hours and that the senior clerk of the counsel had been constantly in touch with Ravinder Singh. During the preceding six months they exchanged 222 calls.

[Joginder Singh Toor is senior advocate and public affairs commentator jogindersingh_toor@yahoo.com]

BACK

 
Indian Supreme Court settles a case filed before Independence

IN a classic example of legal delays in a country with three crore cases pending in various courts, a civil suit that was filed before the country attained Independence in 947 has finally ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favour of one of the parties.

[There are over 48,800 pending cases in the Supreme Court and a backlog of over 38 lakh cases in various High Courts. The Allahabad High Court has the dubious distinction of having the maximum number of 8.59 lakh pending cases, while the Madras High Court has the second-highest arrear of 4.34 lakh cases. Over 30 million cases are pending with lower judiciary in the country]

The original suit filed by Ammasai Gounder against A T Krishnasami Mudaliar and another for recovery of amount due towards supply of jaggery in 1946 before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, had travelled over 62 years before the Supreme Court settled the case once and for all.

The original suit was first decreed (ruled) on October 10, 1947 in favour of Gounder. Challenging the decree, Mudaliar filed an appeal in the Madras High Court the same year.

The High Court stayed the decree subject to the defendants (Mudaliar) depositing the decretal amount in the court. The High Court permitted Gounder to withdraw the said decretal amount after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court.

One Ramaswami Gounder became the surety and gave his agricultural lands as security for the amount permitted to be withdrawn by Ammasai.

However, on an appeal from Mudaliar, the Madras High Court set aside the decree, but by that time Ammasai Gounder is said to have absconded with the decretal amount.

Consequently, Mudaliar filed a suit for recovery of the amount by sale of the lands offered as security by Ramaswami Gounder. The lands offered as security were sold by auction on November 16,1960 and and September 6, 1991.

During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, the surety Ramaswami Gounder died and his widow Rajammal was impleaded as his legal representative.

On December 14, 1960, Rajammal moved an application in the civil court for setting aside the auction sale, but it was rejected on September 17, 1966.

She challenged the said dismissal before the High Court in 1966 which also dismissed her application on August 26, 1971.

Rajammal challenged the the High Court order in a special leave before the apex court in 1973. During the pendency of the said appeal, Rajammal also moved an application for scaling down the debt and setting aside the auction sale under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938.

The apex court on November 7, 1986 dismissed Rajammal's appeal, but however, referred the application for scaling down the debt and setting aside the sale under the Act, to the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, for disposal.

During the pendency of the suit, Rajammal sold the lands which had been offered as security, as also some other properties in favour of one Chinna Pappu Gounder, brother of her husband Ramasami Gounder under registered settlement dated June 3, 1960.

As Rajammal and the legal heirs of Pappu Gounder filed several applications in the civil and high court, the matter kept pending for all these years before it came to the Supreme Court.

It was only on October 24, a bench of Justices R V Raveendran and Aftab Alam finally dismissed the petitions filed by Rajamma and upheld the auctioning of the property.

BACK