Eminent jurist and former Union minister Ram Jethmalani passed away.

Eminent jurist and former Union minister Ram Jethmalani passed away on Sunday at the age of 95, his family members said.

Jethmalani breathed his last at 7.45 am at his official residence in New Delhi, his son Mahesh Jethmalani told PTI.

Mahesh and other close acquaintances said Ram Jethmalani was not keeping well for a few months.

He passed away a few days before his 96th birthday on September 14, his son said.

Mahesh said his father’s last rites will be performed in the evening at the Lodhi road crematorium here.

Besides Mahesh Jethmalani, the former Union minister is survived by his daughter based in the US. His other daughter, Rani Jethmalani, died in 2011.

Jethmalani was the Union law minister and also the Urban development minister during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government. He also served as the Supreme Court Bar Association president in 2010.

He was born in Shikarpur in Sindh province (now in Pakistan) on September 14, 1923 and obtained a law degree at the age of 17.

HC closes defamation suit on kejriwal after he apologised to Arun Jaitley

The Delhi High Court today closed the Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by Union minister Arun Jaitley after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal apologised to him.

Jaitley had filed this second defamation suit after Kejriwal’s former lawyer Ram Jethmalani allegedly “abused” him in open court during the proceedings of the original defamation suit against the Aam Aadmi Party chief and five other party functionaries.

Justice Manmohan allowed the settlement application jointly filed by Jaitley and Kejriwal and disposed of the suit following the AAP chief’s apology, which was accepted by the BJP leader.

The court accepted the written undertaking and statement of both the leaders and decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement application.

During the hearing, advocate Anupam Srivastava, appearing for Kejriwal, told the court that the matter was settled and Jaitley accepted the apology tendered by the AAP leader.

Senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar and advocate Manik Dogra, representing Jaitley, also said the dispute was settled by the parties.

The court noted that the settlement application was signed by the leaders as well as their advocates who undertook that their clients would abide by the undertaking given.

Another bench of the high court is scheduled to hear during the day Jaitley and Kejriwal’s settlement application in the first defamation suit.

Kejriwal had on March 19 opposed in the High Court the second Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed against him by Jaitley over the use of an objectionable word by Jethmalani. He claimed that he had never instructed his then counsel to use any scandalous words against the minister during recording of evidence.

During the cross-examination of the minister on May 17 last year before Joint Registrar, Jethmalani had used a term Jaitley found objectionable.

AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption as the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), a post he had held from 2000 to 2013.

Jaitley, who had denied all allegations levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal and five other leaders of his party, claiming they had made “false and defamatory” statements in the case involving DDCA, thereby harming his reputation.

Arvind Kejriwal opposes a second Rs 10 cr defamation suit in Delhi High Court.

Aam Aadmi Party national convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Monday opposed a second Rs 10 crore defamation suit against him brought by Union Minister Arun Jaitley in the Delhi High Court over the use of an “objectionable” word by his former lawyer Ram Jethmalani.

Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal claimed before Justice Manmohan that he had never instructed his former counsel to use any scandalous words against Jaitley during recording of his evidence.

Jaitley had filed the second defamation suit after Jethmalani allegedly “abused” him in the open court during the proceedings of the original defamation suit he had filed against the AAP chief and five other party functionaries.

The chief minister, however, maintained that apart from the ground of “absolute privilege, the present suit is also barred by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act”.

“The statement, upon which the suit is based on alleged defamatory imputations made by the senior advocate (without any oath), allegedly on the instructions of the defendant (Kejriwal), which he could not have disclosed,” Kejriwal said in his written statement filed through advocate Anupam Srivastava.

Section 126 of the Evidence Act bars disclosure of any professional communication between an advocate and his client including instructions given by the client in relation to his case.

During the cross-examination of the minister on May 17 last year before Joint Registrar in the Delhi High Court, Jethmalani had used a term Jaitley found objectionable.

The second suit filed through advocate Manik Dogra has said that the minister enjoyed a reputation of honesty and probity and had sacrificed large professional earnings in order to undertake public service.

The AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption during the latter’s term as president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA)—that the minister held from 2000 to 2013.

Jaitley, who had denied all allegations levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal and five other leaders of his party, claiming they had made “false and defamatory” statements in the case involving DDCA, thereby harming his reputation. PTI

Kejriwal denies instructing counsel to say defamatory words to

Kejriwal denies instructing counsel to say defamatory words to
Kejriwal denies instructing counsel to say defamatory words to

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today denied in the Delhi High Court that he gave any “specific and categorical” instruction to his previous counsel Ram Jethmalani to use certain defamatory words against Union minister Arun Jaitley.

Kejriwal was refuting the claim of Jaitley that he had received a copy of a forwarded letter by Jethmalani addressed to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief stating that whatever he had asked him during the cross-examination was based on the instruction of the chief minister.

The day’s deliberation before joint registrar Pankaj Gupta relates to the second defamation case filed by Jaitley after derogatory words were used by Jethmalani, allegedly at Kejriwal’s bidding, during his cross-examination in the first defamation case.

The court also imposed Rs 5,000 as cost on Kejriwal for delay in filing response in the second case. This was for the second time that the cost has been imposed on him. The court had imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on Kejriwal on July 26 for the same reason.

The joint registrar asked the chief minister to deposit Rs 5,000 in the ‘Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties’.

Kejriwal, who opposed the second defamation suit against him, informed the joint registrar that on July 20 he had written a letter to Jethmalani “categorically” stating that he had not “instructed” him to use any defamatory words against Jaitley.

However, two days later, Jethmalani wrote a letter to Kejriwal stating that he had used the alleged derogatory words under instructions from him.

The cost was imposed after Jaitley’s counsel Manik Dogra informed the court that the chief minister’s written statement to the suit was filed beyond the time limit of two weeks set by the court on July 26.

The counsel contended these were delaying tactics by the chief minister.

Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, appearing for Kejriwal, urged the court to condone the delay, claiming that the written statement could not be filed due to certain technical objections raised on two occasions by the high court registry.

Taking note of this submission, the registrar condoned the delay on behalf of the chief minister and said the same is “subject to deposit of Rs 5,000 costs”.

The court has now fixed the matter for October 12, before which Jaitley was asked to file his response to Kejriwal’s written statement.

Kejriwal, in his response filed through advocate Anupam Srivastava, said that there were “no compelling circumstances or any cause or reason” for him to have asked Jethmalani, to use “such expression” against the union minister during his cross-examination.

The high court had on May 23 sought response of Kejriwal on why defamation proceedings should not be initiated against him.

Jaitley had filed the second lawsuit after Kejriwal’s then lawyer Jethmalani allegedly “abused” him in open court during proceedings of another defamation suit he had initiated against the AAP chief and five other party functionaries.

Seeking dismissal of the second defamation suit against him, Kejriwal said that the Union minister’s suit is an “abuse of process of law” and “is liable to be dismissed with cost as no civil action for damages for slander lies for any statement in pleadings or during the conduct of a suit against a party or a witness in it.”

“It is denied that the words were made with ulterior motives. It is denied that the same are offensive and malicious. It is also denied that statements were made on specific and categorical instruction of the defendant (Kejriwal).

“It is denied that these words have caused permanent harm and disrepute to the plaintiff (Jaitley). The plaintiff be put to strict proof of the allegations made,” the reply said.

“The statements made during judicial proceedings are even otherwise protected by absolute privilege,” the reply added.

Kejriwal further said that the statement of the senior advocate recorded in the proceedings of evidence on May 17 (which is alleged as the cause of action of the present suit) was beyond “the scope of the knowledge or anticipation of the defendant and was recorded as the request of the plaintiff”.

The first Rs 10 crore defamation suit was filed by Jaitley against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders in 2015.

The second Rs 10 crore defamation suit was filed on May 22 this year only against the chief minister.

Jaitley, who denied all the allegations of corruption levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had claimed that they had made “false and defamatory” statements in the case involving the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), thereby harming his reputation.

( Source – PTI )

Let Kejriwal step into box, says Delhi HC; terms Jethmalani’s remarks scandalous

Let Kejriwal step into box, says Delhi HC; terms Jethmalani's remarks scandalous
Let Kejriwal step into box, says Delhi HC; terms Jethmalani’s remarks scandalous

The Delhi High Court today termed as “scandalous” certain remarks made by Arvind Kejriwal’s lawyer Ram Jethmalani against Arun Jaitley during his cross examination in a civil defamation suit filed by the Union Minister.

Justice Manmohan said if such remarks were made on instructions of Kejriwal, then he should “first step into the box and make good his allegations” before continuing with Jaitley’s cross examination.

“If such allegations have been made on instructions of Defendant 1 (Kejriwal), then no point in continuing with cross examination of plaintiff (Jaitley) any more. Let Defendant 1 make good his allegations. Let him step into the box,” the judge said.

Jaitley’s senior advocates Rajiv Nayar and Sandeep Sethi had raised the issue before the court saying they want a clarification from Kejriwal whether the remarks were made on his instructions or by Jethmalani on his own.

The remarks were made yesterday by Jethmalani before Joint Registrar Deepali Sharma when Jaitley was being cross- examined in the Rs 10 crore civil defamation case filed by him against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders for accusing him of financial irregularities in the DDCA of which he was the President from 2000 to 2013.

Five AAP leaders — Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai — along with Kejriwal are also facing a criminal defamation case filed by Jaitley on the same issue.

The issue cropped up before Justice Manmohan who was hearing an application moved by Chadha for making amendments in his written submission filed in reply to Jaitley’s plea.

( Source – PTI )

Lawyer representing Asaram quits

Asaram bapuOne of the lawyers representing self-styled godman Asaram on Wednesday quit citing personal reasons leading to which a court adjourned the ongoing cross examination of the teenage girl and also slapped a fine on the defence as no other lawyer was ready to further the proceedings.

Counsel Jagmal Choudhary, who had been representing Asaram in Jodhpur court since the beginning of the case, withdrew his ‘vakalatnama’ and told the court that he was no more the lawyer of Asaram.

The case of sexual assault of the girl involving the self-styled godman and four others is going on in District and Sessions court. “After the withdrawal of Choudhary, the court asked others to continue with the arguments, but they refused and sought time, which disappointed the judge, who slapped a cost of Rs 5000,” said public prosecutor R L Meena adding that judge Manoj Kumar Vyas advised Choudhary to think again.

Choudhary had also assisted lawyers coming to represent Asaram including Ram Jethmalani and Omkar Singh Lakhawat in different courts.

He had cited personal reasons for quitting, however, according to the sources, Asaram was not willing to continue with him and was looking forward for a replacement. Appointment of a new lawyer Neel Kamal Bohra in April validated this belief. However, instead of quitting, Choudhary expressed his wish to continue and hence continued representing Asaram in the court along with Bohra.

Choudhary was said to be disappointed due to Tuesday’s development, when the court had turned down his plea to adjourn the arguments. “Though he had started the cross-examination of the victim on Tuesday and was supposed to continue today but instead of that, he withdrew his representation,”

But after he remained firm, the court took the development on record and adjourned hearing till May 16.

(Source: PTI)

SC issues notice over Lalu plea

The Supreme Court Tuesday issued notice on RJD supremo Lalu Prasad‘s plea for transfer of trial in an alleged illegal assets case against him from the existing special CBI court in Jharkhand to any other court with competent jurisdiction.

The apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J. Chelameswar, while issuing the notice, also granted him interim suspension of further proceedings before the trial court.

The apex court order came upon senior counsel Ram Jethmalani telling the court that the trial court has followed an unusual procedure wherein while the arguments were in progress, it put up a notice informing the party to file the written argument by July 1, 2013, so that the judgment could be pronounced July 15, 2013.

The court was informed that there was likelihood of a bias as the sister of the trial court Judge Minu Devi was married to late Jainendra Shahi, the cousin of Bihar minister P.K. Shahi who was recently defeated by a RJD candidate in a parliamentary by-election.

(Source:IANS)

SC stays proceedings on Sahara group & Subrata Roy’s petition

Proceedings on plea filed by the Sahara group and its chief Subrata Roy has been stayed by the Supreme Court here in New Delhi.

The plea was filed against refunding Rs 24,000 crore to investors and attachment of their properties after the Sebi accused them of approaching different forums for delaying the process.

A bench comprising by justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar also issued notice to them on Sebi’s plea seeking transfer of all cases filed by them in securities appellate tribunal and Allahabad high court to Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the market regulator accused the group and its promoter of making “mockery” of apex court’s order which had directed them to deposit Rs 24,000 crore to Sebi which would refund the money to over three crore investors.

Senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for Sebi, submitted that “shocking things” are in CD which was supplied by Sahara group on investors who had put in their money in its two companies — Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC).

He said although names of around 6,000 Kalawatis are not there as reported in media but there are 1,433 Anirudh Singhs there in the list whom the group claimed to have refunded money 34 times.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and advocate Keshav Mohan, appearing for Sahara group, on the other hand, submitted that Sebi is wasting their time and also said that there is serious atmosphere of prejudice prevalent against it as Sebi is leaking information to media on investors.

The bench, however, said that every case is discussed in media and “We do not get prejudiced by such reports”.

“We are not prejudiced. We are not concerned about Kalawati. Lets proceed on legal issues,” the bench said adding “Do not transgress the case”.

The bench was hearing a contempt plea filed by Sebi against the group for not complying apex court’s order passed on August 31, 2012 for depositing Rs 24,000 crore to Sebi.

In the last hearing the bench accused Sahara group and Roy of “manipulating courts” by approaching different forums for relief.

Sahara group and Sebi are locked in legal dispute over the refunding of 24,000 crore by its two companies — SIREC and SHIC—to over three crore investors.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had dismissed its plea for more time to refund the amount.

SIREC and SHIC along Roy are facing contempt proceedings in the apex court which had on February 6 allowed Sebi to freeze accounts and seize properties of its two companies for defying court orders by not refunding the money to investors.

SC stays proceedings on Sahara group & Subrata Roy’s petition

Proceedings on plea filed by the Sahara group and its chief Subrata Roy has been stayed by the Supreme Court here in New Delhi.

The plea was filed against refunding Rs 24,000 crore to investors and attachment of their properties after the Sebi accused them of approaching different forums for delaying the process.

 

A bench comprising by justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar also issued notice to them on Sebi’s plea seeking transfer of all cases filed by them in securities appellate tribunal and Allahabad high court to Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the market regulator accused the group and its promoter of making “mockery” of apex court’s order which had directed them to deposit Rs 24,000 crore to Sebi which would refund the money to over three crore investors.

Senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for Sebi, submitted that “shocking things” are in CD which was supplied by Sahara group on investors who had put in their money in its two companies — Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC).

He said although names of around 6,000 Kalawatis are not there as reported in media but there are 1,433 Anirudh Singhs there in the list whom the group claimed to have refunded money 34 times.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and advocate Keshav Mohan, appearing for Sahara group, on the other hand, submitted that Sebi is wasting their time and also said that there is serious atmosphere of prejudice prevalent against it as Sebi is leaking information to media on investors.

The bench, however, said that every case is discussed in media and “We do not get prejudiced by such reports”.

“We are not prejudiced. We are not concerned about Kalawati. Lets proceed on legal issues,” the bench said adding “Do not transgress the case”.

The bench was hearing a contempt plea filed by Sebi against the group for not complying apex court’s order passed on August 31, 2012 for depositing Rs 24,000 crore to Sebi.

In the last hearing the bench accused Sahara group and Roy of “manipulating courts” by approaching different forums for relief.

Sahara group and Sebi are locked in legal dispute over the refunding of 24,000 crore by its two companies — SIREC and SHIC—to over three crore investors.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had dismissed its plea for more time to refund the amount.

SIREC and SHIC along Roy are facing contempt proceedings in the apex court which had on February 6 allowed Sebi to freeze accounts and seize properties of its two companies for defying court orders by not refunding the money to investors.

BJP may revoke Ram Jethmalani’s suspension

According to the sources, “the suspension may be revoked of veteran lawyer Ram Jethmalani from the BJP, for daring the party to act against him on the issue of appointment of CBI director.”

Indications to this effect were available after Jethmalani met senior leader L K Advani and BJP chief Nitin Gadkari this morning.

Jethmalani was also vocal on the resignation of Gadkari as BJP president in the wake of reported irregularities in the latter’s Purti Group.

BJP spokesman Shahnawaz Hussain told, “At the meeting with Advani and Gadkari, Jethmalani reaffirmed his faith in the BJP’s ideology and wished that the party may come to power in the country.”

He also said the lawyer had also handed over a letter at the meeting to this effect.

According to BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain, “The matter will be considered by the BJP Parliamentary Board,” .

Later, Jethmalani said he had met Advani and Gadkari but refused to go into details.

Jethmalani said, “Ask the leaders… I am just a sevaadhari (servant),” was his response to questions on what transpired during the meeting.

Asked whether a decision would be taken on revoking his suspension, he said, “I hope it will happen. It should happen.”

Jethmalani was suspended from the BJP on November 26 for attacking the party stand which had taken a critical view of the appointment of Ranjit Sinha as the director of the CBI.

In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, leaders of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley had asked him to keep the CBI director’s appointment in abeyance.

 

To read in Hindi CLICK HERE: