pe-2002 RETIREES' 100% TIME-BARRED = this TUESDAY TURMOIL

(Belated release for 31st october)

PL MUST READ "COURSE OF ACTION" AT END

By Yesterday, 90 days completed for 100% DA case "JUDGEMENT RESERVED PRONOUNCEMENT".

10 Days also over for AIBRF Representatives' ANNOUNVEMENT(while canvassing for NIA super top up policy) that Judgement will be delivered in 8-10days for 100% DA Case.

Last week witnessed ardent enquiries and hopeless feelihgs about the case among pre-2002 retirees whoever met, even while shaking hands.

Meanwhile, some rumours spread, the Judgment on 31st Oct but resulted as just rumours.

SURPRISINGLY, AIBRF who done well till july2017 &  boasted itself as pioneered the case for reaching final stage in shortest possible time is tepid now and has no same spirit  to get JUDGEMENT in shorted possible time but crawling on the matter now, as follows:

----------

AIBRF  Ref:2017/93 Date:31.08.2017 

3. We are happy to find that this legal case has reached to final stage in the shortest possible time after filing intervention application by AIBRF and various steps initiated thereafter. It can be summarised as under: (a) Filing of Intervention Application by AIBRF 10.05.2017 (b) Filing of Additional Documents 28.07.2017 (c) Hearing in the case 03.08.2017 (d) Hearing in other Related cases 23.08.2017 (e) Written submissions filed 30.08.2017 

AIBRF Ref:2017/102 Date:30.09.2017 

JUDGMENT RESEVERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF 100 PER CENT DA. We are getting several inquiries every day about the date of judgement in 100 per cent DA case to be delivered by the Supreme Court . We may inform you that date is yet to be fixed and our inquiry reveals the in Supreme Court, it takes 45 to 90 days to deliver judgment in reserved cases. We shall advised date when we get official confirmation.  

----------------

AIBPARC & CBPRO ALMOST SLEEPING ON THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING FOLLOWING STATEMENT WITH NO INFORMATION THEREAFTER. SEEMS IT ALSO NOT FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT IN COURT.

Circular 014/2017 Dated 23.08.2017 To General Secretaries of all Constituents of CBPRO 

....Hon’ble Court after hearing the arguments of all the parties reserved the Judgment directing the parties to file written submissions within a weeks’ time. As a follow-up measure we shall ensure filling of written statements on our behalf within the stipulated period of one week. We shall keep you posted of the developments. Yours Comradely, A.Ramesh Babu K.V.Acharya Joint Conveners

----------

PRESENT POSITION PER SUPREME COURT SITE AS FOLLOWS >>>

SLP 7368/2017 UBI vs. UBIRWA

Status/Stage

Pending - (Motion Hearing  [ORDERS (INCOMPLETE MATTERS / IAs / CRLMPs)]) Heard & Reserved-Ord dt:01-08-2017

latest 

Listing Dates

CL Date	Misc./Regular	Stage	Purpose	Proposed/ List in	Judges	IA	Remarks	Listed
01-08-2017	Misc.	[ORDERS (INCOMPLETE MATTERS / IAs / CRLMPs)]	Fixed Date	Judge	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT	40943/2017,44890/2017,50769/2017,51316/2017,	Heard & Reser

Interlocutory Application / Documents

OTHER DOCUMENT(s)
Doc. No.	Document Type	Filed By	Filing Date	Enter By

82552/2017

WRITTEN SUBMISSION/STATEMENT

ARUN K. SINHA

30-08-2017 10:47 AM

Court Fees

Total Court Fee : 3500
Court Fee paid : 3500

Judgement/Orders

LAST ONE

Date of Judgment/Order

01-08-2017  [ROP]

Tagged Matters

CONNECTED MATTERS NOT FOUND

======================================================

REVIEW PETITION 1045/2017  

Petitioner(s)	1 A.B. KASTHURIRANGAN .
Respondent(s)	1 CANARA BANK .

Disp.Type

Dismissed

Tagged Matters

CONNECTED MATTERS NOT FOUND

Listing Dates

CL Date	Misc./Regular	Stage	Purpose	Proposed/ List in	Judges	IA	Remarks	Listed
03-05-2017	Misc.	[FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]	Ordinary	Judge

Court Fees

Total Court Fee : 3400

Judgement/Orders

Date of Judgment/Order

03-05-2017  [ROP]

================================================================

REVIEW PETITION 1201/2017  C R CHANDRASEKHARAN  vs.  CANARA BANK

Status/Stage

Pending - (Motion Hearing  [DIRECTION MATTERS]) Other (Delay condoned. Judgment reserved)-Ord dt:23-08-2017

Tagged Matters

	Case No.	Petitioner vs. Respondant	List	Status	Stat. Info.	IA	DA	Entry Date
M	1081/2014 (08-03-2014 12:00 AM) C.A. No. 003762 - 003764 / 2014  Registered on 08-03-2014 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 003198 - 003200 / 2014  Registered on 14-02-2014 SLP(C) No. 004843 - 004845 / 2014  Registered on 14-02-2014	R.BALAKRISHNA BHAT & ORS.ETC. vs. R.BALAKRISHNA BHAT .ETC.	-	P		4479/2017 (D)  1/2017 (D)	PARMOD KUMAR [SECTION : XII]
C	8268/2017 (01-05-2017 04:01 PM) R.P.(C) No. 001201 / 2017  Registered on 01-05-2017	C.R. CHANDRASEKARAN vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS	Y	P	FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA 1/2017 FOR PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT ON IA 2/2017 and IA No.76635/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS	1/2017 (P)  CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION 2/2017 (P)  PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT 76635/2017 (P)  PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS	NEETU VERMA [SECTION : XII]	13-10-2017 10:15 AM
C	7892/2017 (01-05-2017 05:03 PM) R.P.(C) No. 001202 / 2017  Registered on 01-05-2017	T V ALWAN AND ORS vs. CANARA BANK REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS	Y	P	FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA 1/2017 FOR PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT ON IA 2/2017 and IA No.76875/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS	1/2017 (P)  CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION 2/2017 (P)  PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT 76875/2017 (P)  PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS	NEETU VERMA [SECTION : XII]	13-10-2017 10:15 A

Listing Dates

CL Date	Misc./Regular	Stage	Purpose	Proposed/ List in	Judges	IA	Remarks	Listed
31-10-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge
24-10-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge
24-10-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge		1/2017,2/2017,
24-10-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge		1/2017, 2/2017,
09-10-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge		1/2017,2/2017,
23-08-2017	Misc.	[DIRECTION MATTERS]	Fixed Date	Judge	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT	1/2017, 2/2017,	Other [Delay condoned. Judgment reserved]

Interlocutory Application / Documents

Doc. No.	Document Type	Filed By	Filing Date	Enter By

82045/2017

WRITTEN SUBMISSION/STATEMENT

P. K. MANOHAR

29-08-2017 12:38 PM

Court Fees

Total Court Fee : 1710

==================================================================================

REVIEW PETITION   1594/2017   

Petitioner(s)

1 R. BALAKRISHNA BHAT AND ORS ETC

Respondent(s)

1 BANK OF BARODA AND ORS

Status/Stage

Pending - (Motion Hearing  [AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]) List On (Date) (23-08-2017), Other (Order dated 1/2/2017 recalled and list the Appeal for final hearing on 23/8/2017)-Ord dt:14-08-2017

Tagged Matters

CONNECTED MATTERS NOT FOUND

Listing Dates

CL Date	Misc./Regular	Stage	Purpose	Proposed/ List in	Judges	IA	Remarks	Listed
13-10-2017	Misc.	[AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]	Fixed Date	Judge		67006/2017,67009/2017,
23-08-2017	Misc.	[AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]	Fixed Date	Judge

COURSE OF ACTION

RECENTLY ASKED A REVIEW PETITIONER ABOUT WHAT REG. ACTION TAKING FOR MOVING TO GET JUDGEMENT.

REPLIED THEY HAVE NO INTIMATION FURTHER FROM THEIR ADVOCATE.

IT IS LIKE WHO TO WAKE UP FIRST??

CLIENT OR ADVOCATE???

ACC. TO SOME NOTED LAWYERS' OPINION, THE FOLLOWING ACTION TO BE TAKEN

APEX COURT in 2001 in Anil Rai vs State of Bihar had laid down clear guidelines relating to pronouncement of judgment. The SC had said, "Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving the judgment, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the high court with a prayer for early judgment." The court had said such an application would be listed for hearing before the concerned judges within two days.
The SC had also said, "If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within six months, any of the parties to the said list (case) shall be entitled to move an application before the chief justice of the high court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments. It is open for the chief justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any order as he deems fit in the circumstances."

Ajay Sethi

Advocate, Mumbai

Available Now

36515 Answers

2035 Consultations

Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi began their judgment in Anil Rai v. State with the observation : "The magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not do any judicial work at all. This Court strongly disapproves the magistrates making such a tremendous delay in the delivery of his judgments." The Supreme Court in the above case strongly deprecated the practice of judges in 'reserving' judgments in matters and not pronouncing them for long periods of time. The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for the said purpose, which are enumerated hereinbelow;

i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.
ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.
iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving judgment any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.


This is one of the ruling by the supreme court for the reserved judgments which is applicable to your case too, consult your advocate on this issue and take his advise on further process.

T Kalaiselvan

Advocate, Vellore

Available Now

26470 Answers

270 Consultations

= VBV Ramesh