Saturday, July 31, 2010

Lawyers can complain if forced by Bar to withdraw from case

Lawyers can complain if forced by Bar to withdraw from case

Friday, July 30, 2010, 22:02

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today said that complaints can be lodged to District Judges and Chief Justices of High Courts against the members of the Bar for forcing lawyers to withdraw themselves from defending the accused in terror cases.
The apex court termed as a "law and order" problem the practise of compelling the lawyers to dissociate themselves from any cases including the terror-related cases by coercion and inducement.

"This is a law and order problem. You can go for redressal to District Judge who will forward your complaint to the Chief Justice of a particular High Court for appropriate action," a Bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said.
The Bench was hearing a PIL filed in 2008 alleging that State Bar Associations and other lawyers' bodies in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have passed resolutions that members of the bar would not defend the accused in terror cases, particularly those involved in serial blasts cases of 2006.

The Bench said the apex court cannot control the members of the Bar in such type of situation and the best recourse available was to approach the District Judge through a letter bringing to his/her notice about such incidents.
"You can write to the Chief Justice of the High Court and also the District Judge on the administrative side for taking actions," the Bench said.
The Bar Council of India, which was asked to come out with guidelines to stop such incidents, submitted its proposed steps saying that the Chairman of the State Bar Council can ask the advocates to desist from such action on receiving a such complaint.
Further, in case the concerned advocate/advocates or any Bar Association does not cease and desist from action, then the issue would be referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the respective state Bar association.
The state Bar council will have to forward the complaints to the BCI.
Taking the proposed steps of BCI on record, the Bench disposed of the petition.

Anticipatory bail provision back in UP after 34 years

Anticipatory bail provision back in UP after 34 years

The UP Government on Friday approved reintroduction of the provision of anticipatory bail, a legal measure abolished 34 years ago. The decision was taken at a Cabinet meeting chaired by CM Mayawati. taken at a Cabinet meeting chaired by CM Mayawati. The anticipatory bail system would be reintroduced in Uttar Pradesh after almost three decades with some conditions. The State Cabinet, which met on Friday, finalised the Bill bringing amendment in the Criminal Procedural Code, thus facilitating implementation of the clause of anticipatory bail.

A UP Government spokesman said Section 438 of the CrPC would be amended through a legislation in the forthcoming Monsoon Session of the Legislature. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedural Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976, was amended in 1976 by the then State Government, abolishing the anticipatory bail system in the State.

"The decision to re-introduce anticipatory bail was taken following recommendation of a high-level committee," the spokesman said.

The committee, headed by State Advisory Council Chairman Satish Chandra Mishra, had given its recommendation to revive the system. The UP Advocate General, Principal Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Law), Principal Secretary (Parliamentary Affairs) and DGP were other members of this committee. The reprieve has, however, come with a rider. The anticipatory bail system would be applicable on only those cases where the maximum punishment is not more than 10 years imprisonment.

In another decision, the Cabinet has authorised Principal Secretary (Planning) to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Unique Identification Authority of India.

This decision would pave the way for early implementation of the UID number project in the Uttar Pradesh.



LUCKNOW: Uttar Pradesh government on Friday approved reintroduction of the provision of anticipatory bail as provided in Indian Penal Code (IPC), a legal measure which was abolished 34 years ago.
A decision in this regard was taken at a cabinet meeting chaired by chief minister Mayawati.
However, the provision would not be applicable in murder, abduction cases and cases of SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention) Act, official sources said.
The home department had on May 4 constitued a committee, with chairman state advisory board, advocate general, principal secretaries home, law and parliamentary affairs as it members, which recommended implementation of provisions of anticipatory bail in the state, they said.
The provisons of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Crpc was abolished in Uttar Pradesh by IPC (UP amendment) Act 1976, they added.


Exactly 34 years after it was scrapped, the provision for anticipatory bail is being reintroduced by the state government in Uttar Pradesh. A decision to that effect was taken at a meeting of the state cabinet presided over by Chief Minister Mayawati on Friday. "The cabinet has decided to seek an

amendment in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby the provision for anticipatory bail that was repealed way back in 1976, was sought to be restored," an official spokesman said on Friday.

This follows a recommendation given by a high level committee under the chairmanship of Uttar Pradesh Advisory Council chairman Satish Chandra Misra. Among others on the committee were the advocate general, principal secretary (law), principal secretary (home), principal secretary (legislation) and director general of police.

The committee recommended for reintroduction of anticipatory bail, albeit with certain riders. "As such, it would not apply in case of all special laws like the gangsters act or various anti terrorist laws," the spokesman added.

Not everybody in a joint family can claim its property: Supreme court

Not everybody in a joint family can claim its property: Supreme court

saturday 31 july 2010

When members of a joint family live on a property, it does not mean they co-own it, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Anybody who says the property is a joint family estate must also prove it, the court said in a ruling that distinguishes between joint estate and joint family.

The onus of proving that a particular property is joint family property lies on the person who claims it to be so, the court said, while allowing a landlord’s appeal to get his defaulting tenant evicted. The landlord had gone to the high court which said that the property was a joint family estate and that the landlord wasn’t its owner.

The latest ruling, handed down by a bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and KS Radhakrishnan on Friday, however, said if the possession of a nucleus of joint family property is proved, any acquisition made by its member is presumed to be joint family property.

This is, however, subject to the limitation that joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown that the onus shifts on the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to establish that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate.

Two brothers whose families living togetherin Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh — Sameer Kumar Pal and Subhash Chandra Pal —had sought eviction of their tenant Sheikh Akbar.

Akbar wouldn’t vacate the premises for which he had paid rent since 1991. The brothers, who own Madras Hotel in the city and had let out a shop to Akbar at New Corporation Chowk, Wright Town, Jabalpur, had filed a lawsuit under various sections of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

The trial court ordered Akbar’s eviction, but the Madhya Pradesh high court (Jabalpur bench) reversed the finding.

Without any pleadings or basis, it held that Madras Hotel is a joint family property. It “erroneously” held that the property was purchased by the landlords’ father and his brothers, though the truth was the brothers had purchased it on December 31, 1991. “A wrong assumption led to a totally erroneous finding and conclusion. The high court weaved out an entirely new case,” the apex court observed.

It also referred to a 1948 Privy Council judgment delivered by Sir John Beaumont defining Hindu law. Proof of the existence of a joint family should not lead anyone to presume that all its members own the property, he had said.