Representation of a Complainant

It is nowadays being felt that intermittent court proceedings are a drain on the valuable time of the officers of the Company who attend criminal proceedings in Courts and therefore the question to be explored is of the possibility of either the Officer further delegating his powers to a Third Person for representation before a Court or the Company directly appointing a Third Person as its Power of Attorney.

 

In light of the above circumstances, we have examined the provisions of law applicable and the judicial pronouncements thereon.

 

 

Section 138 of the NI Act deals with dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts and states as under: –

 

 

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

 

 

         Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

 

 

 (a)      The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

 

 

 (b)      The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, and

 

 

 (c)      The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

 

 

 Explanation: For the purpose of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

 

 

 

Section 142 of the NI Act deals with cognizance of offences and states as under : –

 

 

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).-

 

 

(a)      No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

 

 

(b)      Such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (C) of the proviso to section 138:

 

 

 Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

 

 

 (c)      No court inferior to that of a Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.

 

 

 Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney, 1882 states as under: –

 

 

 The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor there of. This section applies to powers-of-attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force.

 

 

 Sections 200 to 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read as under: –

 

 

 200.   Examination of complainant.-

 

 

 A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

 

 

 Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

 

 

 (a)      if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complainant; or

 

 

 (b)      if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192:

 

 

 Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

 

 

 

 201.   Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case.-

 

 

 If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall, –

 

 

 (a)      if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;

 

 

 (b)      if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.

 

 

 

202.   Postponement of issue of process.-

 

 

 (1)      Any Magistrate , on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

 

 

 Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, –

 

 

 (a)      where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

 

 

 (b)      where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

 

 

 (2)      In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

 

 

 Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

 

 

 (3)      If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

 

 

203.   Dismissal of complaint.-

 

 

 If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

 

 

 302. Permission to conduct prosecution :-

 

 

 (1)      Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of inspector, but no person, other than the Advocate-General, or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission:

 

 

 Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.

 

 

 (2)      Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.

 

 

 

Section 183 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under: –

 

 

“Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent.”

 

 

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. -versus- Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 234 has dealt with a matter where the complaint was signed and presented by a person, who was neither an authorised agent nor a person empowered under the articles of Association or by any resolution of the Board to do so. The complaint was held to be not maintainable by the High Court and the taking of cognizance of such a complaint was found legally not acceptable.  However, though initially there was no authority, still the Appellant had at a later date rectified that defect. At a subsequent stage the Appellant had sent a person who was competent to represent the The Appellant. The Supreme Court held that the complaints could not have been quashed on this ground.  While doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the judgments in the case of Vishwa Mitter of Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot -versus- O.P. Poddar and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 701 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. – versus- Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687.

 

 

In Vishwa Mitter of Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot -versus- O.P. Poddar and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 701 it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. It has been held that no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. It has been held that if any special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision for taking cognizance of such offences under the statute, then the complainant requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by the statute. In the present case, the only eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142 is that the complaint must be by the payee or the holder in due course. This criteria is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the Appellant Company.

 

 

In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. – versus- Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the complainant has to be a corporeal person who is capable of making a physical appearance in the court.  It has been held that if a complaint is made in the name of a incorporeal person (like a company or corporation), it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the court. It is held that the Court looks upon the natural person to be complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate, it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as de facto complaint to represent the former in court proceedings. It has further been held that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek permission of the court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court.

 

 

The issue of the manner of representation of a Company Complainant before the Court in terms of Sections 200 to 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is yet to be set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has, in the matter of Y. Vijayalakshmi@ Rambha -versus- Manickam Narayanan, Proprietor, Seventh Channel Communications rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent 2005 CriLJ 3572 attempted to set down a procedure when a General Power of Attorney is representing a Complainant. It has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court as under: –

 

 

“Thus, from the above discussion it is made clear that complaint can be presented by GPA on behalf of the payee, provided,

 

 

 (i)       the complaint shall be signed by the payee himself;

 

 

 (ii)      there shall be also an affidavit of the complainant in proof of his execution of GPA; added to the production of the said Power of Attorney document;

 

 

 (iii)     sworn statement of GPA can be recorded on the date of presentation of the complaint;

 

 

 (iv)            sworn statement of payee (complainant) shall have to be taken in a future date on his appearance in Court; the Magistrate shall thoroughly examine the statements of GPA holder as well as the original complaint and documents produced before him and exercise his discretion vested under Sections 202 and 203 of Cr.P.C.

 

 

 (v)               The above guidelines are not exhaustive and in other circumstances the Magistrate shall exercise his discretion judiciously and in confirmity of other provisions of law applicable.”

Private Screening and Cinematograph Act

What if you want to exhibit films at Home for a private select audience?

 

 

We begin with a presumption that all such films that you wish to exhibit have already been certified for public exhibition by the Board of Film Censors, Government of India.

 

 

You have arranged to exhibit the aforesaid films for a select audience at your home. The exhibition shall be conducted through the medium of DVD/CD ROMs played through the Home Theatre Systems. Approximately 10 or more of your friends and relatives are going to be your select audience. The exhibition shall be absolutely free of cost.

 

 

We check on whether it is necessary for you to comply with any statutory or regulatory requirements and if yes, the manner in which such statutory or regulatory requirements have to be complied with.

 

 

The exhibition of cinematographic films in India is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act was enacted to make provision for certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematograph.

 

 

Section 2 (c) and (dd) of the Act define “cinematograph” and “film” as under: –

 

 

(c) “cinematograph” includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures;

 

 

(dd) “film” means a cinematograph film;

 

 

It may be seen that by a plain reading of the aforesaid definition, a home theatre system is covered under the definition as it is used for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. The films proposed to be shown are also covered under the definition of film more particularly since the said films have already undergone the process of certification under the Act.

 

 

Section 2 (e) of the Act defines a “place” as under: –

 

 

(e) “place” includes a house, building, tent and any description of transport, whether by sea, land or air

 

 

The aforesaid definition is, therefore, exhaustive enough to include your house, where it is proposed to exhibit the films.

 

 

The term “prescribed” is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act to mean as prescribed by the rules made under the Act.

 

 

Section 7 of the Act provides for certain penalties for contravention of the provisions of Part-II of the Act which deals with certification of films for public exhibition in any place, the place being the place as defined by the Act.

 

 

Section 10 of the Act, which is in Part-III (which deals with regulation of exhibitions by means of Cinematograph) reads as under: –

 

 

10. “Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed – Save as otherwise provided in this Part, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under this part or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such license.”

 

 

Section 11 of the Act provides for the licensing authority. Section 12 of the Act lays down that the licensing authority shall not grant a licence under this Part, unless it is satisfied that the rules made under Part-III have been substantially complied with and adequate precautions have been taken in the place where the films are to be exhibited and the place in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions of films.

 

 

Section 13 of the Act gives power to the Central Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases. Section 16 of the Act gives power to frame rules.

 

 

The Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981 were promulgated on December 31, 1981 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Act. Clause (iv) of Rule 2 of the said Rules reads as under :-

 

 

“(iv) ‘Licenced premises’ means the entire plot of land initially sold/ purchased/leased for construction of a cinema building, and any shopping, commercial complex constructed as part of the cinema building and shall include the space set aside for parking of vehicles, and passage of people and vehicles to a public thoroughfare.”

 

 

Part-II and Part-III of the Rules respectively deal with procedure in granting licence and inspections of the places in respect of which the licences are sought or given or intended to be given.

 

 

An identical situation arose, which was discussed and analysed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Balwinder Singh –versus- Delhi Administration, Delhi and other (AIR 1984 Delhi 379), where the Petitioner, who was exhibiting films through the medium of a television and a video cassette player in a small enclosure with a seating capacity of 25 persons and charging Rs. 2/- per head, was stopped from exhibiting films for violation of the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, inter-alia claiming that for such exhibition of films as was being done by him, the provisions of the Act are not attracted and he is not required to seek a license as envisaged under the Act.

 

 

The Hon’ble High Court, dismissed the Petition holding that: –

 

 

“…….Likewise both the articles would be cinematograph whether jointly and severally within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act. The definition is an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive definition. We reject argument that the two are not apparatus. These are jointly and severally apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Therefore, the provisions of the Cinematograph Act are clearly attracted. If that be so then the question that arises for consideration is whether the Video and television can be used for the purpose for which the same are admittedly being used.

 

 

18. Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act, which we have read earlier, prohibits any one to give an exhibition by means of cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under Part-III of the Act and then also in accordance with an in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed in the licence. The crucial words in the section, in our opinion, are “shall give an exhibition”. Giving of an exhibition will be different from viewing a programme received on a television set by public transmission or with the aid of an apparatus like a video. The confusion which the petitioner sought to create was that projecting films with the aid of video and television would amount to viewing and not exhibiting. The distinction between viewing and exhibiting is obvious. A person who sees a film views it. A person who makes it possible for others to see a film exhibits it or gives an exhibition of the film. A person is permitted to give an exhibition only in a licensed premises and that also in accordance with the conditions of the said licence. He cannot give an exhibition anywhere he likes though he may be the owner of the premises or premises or a tenant of the premises.

 

 

19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that if the above is the interpretation of Section 10 of the Cinematograph Act then even domestic use of a video or a television or both by a family in their house would be violative of S. 10. There is a fallacy in this argument. The words used in Section 10 are “give an exhibition”. A family owning television and/or a video does not give an exhibition. It views a film or the transmission on an apparatus.”

 

 

A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Restaurant Lee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 146) while interpreting Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, which is pari materia to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, has observed as under: –

 

 

“One of the meanings of “exhibit” is “to show publicly for the purpose of amusement or instruction.” “Exhibition” means a public display, i.e. a display to which public is admitted (See Oxford English Dictionary Vol. III, pages 408-409 and the Random House Dictionary, Unabridged Edition page 499). It is in this sense that the word “exhibition” as used in S. 3 has to be understood.”

 

 

The same view as AIR 1984 Delhi 379 and AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 146 has been held by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Hanuman Prasad Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 Bombay 34).

 

 

From the aforesaid, it is clear that you cannot give a public exhibition of the cinematographic film unless the place where the exhibition is sought to be held is duly licensed under the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

 

 

Under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 2002 and the Regulations for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, 1980, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) is the authority who grants licenses to Cinemas/Auditoriums/Video Games Parlours, etc. A Person desirous of holding an exhibition of Cinematographic film has to apply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), who in turn issues written directions to the concerned authorities for inspection of the place from the point of view of electrical, sanitation, etc. The concerned authorities thereafter would seek the Applicant to deposit the fees prescribed for the purpose and to provide any further relevant information that is required. Thereafter, the concerned authorities conduct inspections of the place and the Cinematograph equipments installed at the place and submit their observations to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) for grant/refusal of the License. The main object of these inspections is to ensure compliance of the safety provisions prescribed in the Delhi Cinematograph Rules and Regulations.

Letter of Comfort

It is seen that on many occasions Lenders accept Letters of Comfort from a larger Parent Company, a well-to-do subsidiary company or a substantial shareholder. Such Letters of Comfort usually undertake to ensure that for the entire life of the facilities provided to the borrower and until its full discharge, the borrower shall be couched in all aspects and provided with required support in such way it will be able at all times fully to meet its obligations arising in connection with the facilities extended.

 

A stage might come where the Principal borrower defaults in repayments on the Lending and the Lender needs to invoke all remedies available to recover its dues. On that day a question arises for consideration –

 

“Whether the letter of comfort can be construed by the Lender as a Guarantee and consequently whether the Entity issuing such Letter of Comfort would be held liable as a Guarantor to clear the outstanding dues of the Lender” ?

 

In order to understand the true import and intention of a Letter of Comfort, the language of the Letter of Comfort is to be read. However, as stated earlier, the Letter of Comfort invariably records the facility extended to the Principal Borrower and an undertaking is given ensuring that till the entire life of the aforesaid facility and until its full discharge, the Principal Borrower shall be vouched in all aspects and provided with required support in such a way it will be able at all times fully to meet its obligations arising in connection with the said facility.”

 

The Letter of Comfort only undertaken to ensure that the Principal Borrower the issuer of the Letter of Comfort shall take all reasonable care to provide support to the Principal Borrower to remain solvent.

 

Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a “contract of guarantee” as under: –

 

“A “contract of guarantee” is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default.”

 

As understood from the Letter of Comfort, the Issuer neither contracts to perform the promise made by the Principal Borrower, nor does the Issuer agree to discharge the liability of the Principal Borrower in case of a default by the Principal Borrower. There are no separate Agreements of Guarantee or any other Agreements pertaining to the facilities extended to the Principal Borrower. The Issuer also refrains from creating any charge on its own properties in consideration of the facilities provided to the Principal Borrower.

 

In terms of Section 372 A of the Companies Act, 1956, a Guarantee can be given only if the same is sanctioned by a resolution passed at a meeting of the Board with the consent of all the directors present at the meeting and the prior approval of the public financial institution, if any term loan is subsisting. The said approval of a public financial institution shall not be required where the aggregate of the loans and investments so far made, the amounts for which guarantee or security so far provided to or in all other bodies corporate, alongwith the investments, loans, guarantee or security proposed to be made or given does not exceed the limit of 60 percent specified in sub-section (1), if there is no default in repayment of loan installments or payment of interest thereon as per the terms and conditions of such loan to the public financial institution.

 

If, however, the guarantee proposed to be given is likely to result in the aggregate of loans and investments so far made, the amounts for which guarantee or security so far provided to or in all other bodies corporate, along with the investment, loan, guarantee or security proposed to be made or given by the Board, exceeding the limits laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 372A, in addition to the requirements laid down in the preceding paragraph, prior approval of the Company needs to be obtained. Such approval shall be obtained by means of a special resolution passed at the General meeting of the Company.

 

However. the Board may give guarantee, without, being previously authorized by a special resolution, if, –

 

(a) a resolution is passed in the meeting of the Board authorizing to give guarantee in accordance with the provisions of this section;

 

(b) there exist exceptional circumstances which prevent the company from obtaining the previous authorization by a special resolution passed in a general meeting for giving a guarantee; and

 

(c) the resolution of the Board under clause (a) is confirmed within twelve months, in a general meeting of the company or the annual general meeting held immediately after passing of the Board resolution, whichever is earlier;

 

Moreover the notice of such resolution must indicate the details of guarantee proposed to be given. Apart from this, the Company needs to comply with the provisions of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is also required to maintain the register as prescribed under Sub-section (5) of Section 372A.

 

None of the above conditions are met nor are required to be met prior to issuing a Letter of Comfort. In the circumstances, such Letters of Comfort cannot be termed as Guarantees and are therefore not enforceable in a Court of Law by the Lender against the Issuer for recovering the outstanding dues of the Principal Borrower under the facilities granted to it by the Lender.

e-Governance in Indian Courts

eGovernance in Indian Courts

The Courts Informatics Division, National Informatics Centre (NIC) of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India is providing network backbone and e-Governance support to Central Government, State Governments, UT Administrations, Districts and other Government bodies. NIC has been closely associated with the Indian Judiciary for the past eleven years. NIC’s role in serving the legal community through Information Technology (IT) began as early as 1990 when the COURTIS (Court Information System) Project was conceptualized and commissioned for streamlining registries of various courts. COURTNIC was formally inaugurated by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah on September 25, 1993 at Bangalore. Since then, NIC, with the constant support of the Supreme Court of India has taken great strides. Today all High Courts have been computerised and interconnected though NIC’s satellite-based computer-communication network NICNET.

Supreme Court of India

Following are some of the most important applications implemented by NIC in the Supreme Court of India, which helped the Registry in streamlining its routine activities.

Judicial Wing

Filing Counter Computerization

Fresh cases are now filed only before the computerized Filing Counters. As the advocates stand in queue for Filing cases before the counters, the data entry Operator enters preliminary details of the case such as Party names, advocate details, etc., required for Registration. Filing receipts are generated; Court fee and Time Limitation are calculated automatically; Automatic registration takes place; Filing information is immediately available on Internet.

List of Business Information System (LOBIS):

This system contains pending and disposed cases since 1990. The size of the database is about 500,000 records. It is a near time-critical application as the Cause Lists are to be generated by the computer system by the court’s closing hours every day. This application also uses bunching/grouping technique, which enabled the registry in bringing down the pendency in the Court.

Court’s Order/Proceedings Computerization

This is about computerization of day-to-day orders delivered in the Court. The software enables the Court Masters in speeding up the process of typing orders/judgements by providing the preamble, which includes the Item No. of the Case in the Cause List, Names of Parties, Advocate Names, High Court/Lower Court details, Names of Judges before whom cases are listed, date of order, etc. on the screen.

COURTNIC

COURTNIC is an information system designed to provide the information on the status of cases in the Court to a wide variety of users, from anywhere in the country.

Record Room Computerisation

This system keeps track of Files and Printed Records Consignment, Weeding of files, Printed Records and their maintenance, Movement of files, Tracing of files.

Judicial Sections

All Judicial Sections are provided with computer systems for: Updating the case databases pertaining to their sections; Minimizing movement of files; Generation of notices; Generation of Dismissal letters; Registration of cases; Disposal of cases; Finding status of cases; etc.

Library Information System

i. SUPLIS -Case Indexing

It contains citation information of all reported cases decided by the Supreme Court from 1950 onwards.

ii. Current content

It keeps track of all legal & judicial articles published in journals subscribed by the Library of Supreme Court.

iii. Cataloging

It maintains details of all books available in the Judges’ Library of Supreme Court and supports “Issue and Return”

Various important Information Systems including the following have also been designed for effective Administration in the Supreme Court : Pay Roll; Inventory Control System; Personal Information System; Monitoring of Recovery of loans, Monitoring of Bank Guarantor’s Cases, Monitoring of Payment to Petitioner/Respondent for Court ordered cases etc.

Web-site of Supreme Court of India (http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/)
provides useful information, to all concerned about the Apex Court and its functionality.

High Courts Computerization

NIC took up computerization of all 18 High Courts and 10 Benches on the lines of Apex Court’s Computerization. NIC has also implemented the List of Business Information (LOBIS) in all High Court Courts. All High Courts’ Cause List are also available on Internet. Most of the High Courts have opened query counters along with Filing Counters for providing Case-status information to the litigants and advocates.

• Facilities.
• All High Courts are provided with computer Hardware with back-up facility
• All Court rooms are equipped with terminals and printers and are connected on LAN
• Some High Courts Judgments and Orders are available on Internet
• Most High Courts have their Web sites
• Causelists are generated automatically
• Posting of cases to various courts are done by the system
• Court fee and Time limitations are calculated automatically
• Notices are generated
• Computer based Filing Counters are opened
• Filing receipts are generated for reference of advocates
• Query counters are available
• JUDIS & COURTNIC are available
• All High Courts are connected on NICNET/Internet
• Day to day Judgements and Orders are stored on computers
• Most of the High Courts’ Libraries are computerised
• Administrative and Account applications have been computerized
• Some of the High Courts have FTDMA/IPA V-Sat based Internet connectivity

District Courts Computerisation

In 1997, NIC took up the computerization of all 430 District Courts in the country on the lines of High Courts Computerization Project. The basic objectives of the project are:

• To provide transparency of information to the litigants and advocates
• To help the judicial administration in streamlining its activities
• To provide judicial and legal databases to the District Judges

NIC provided three level training programs to the District Court officials.

• Computer Awareness Programs for the District Judges.
• Supervisory level training at NIC State Centres.
• In-house hands on training to the District Court officials working on the computer terminals.

All officials have been trained on “District Court Information System” (DCIS) software.

The DCIS Software is a huge general purpose Software package developed for the computerization of District Courts. This software takes care of all aspects of District Court needs.

On the Web

Following are some of the web-based applications which have been successfully implemented at Supreme Court and 18 High Courts and these applications have either direct or indirect impact on the masses i.e. litigants.

CASE-STATUS

(http://www.casestatus.nic.in)

This website provides Supreme Court’s pending and disposed case status information to litigants/advocates on Internet. “Case-status” gives the latest information with respect to the status of a case which could stand as: Disposed/Adjourned, Lower court details, party and advocate names etc. The moment a case is filed in the court, its “Case-status” is available on the web. The “Case-status” also provides all orders pertaining to a case, delivered so far by the court.

NIC has made the Causelists of the following High Courts on its Web servers apart from the Supreme Court of India:

Supreme Court of India
Allahabad
Andhra Pradesh
Bombay
Calcutta
Chattisgarh
Chennai
Delhi
Gujarat
Guwahati
Himachal Pradesh
Jabalpur
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Jodhpur
Karnataka
Kerala
Patna
Punjab & Haryana
Orissa
Uttaranchal
Sikkim
High Court of Calcutta

JUDIS

(http://www.judis.nic.in)

NIC brought out Judgement Information System (JUDIS) on CD-Rom consisting of complete text of all reported judgement of Supreme Court of India from 1950 to 2000. The Judgements of 2001 onwards are available on Internet. JUDIS-CD is available on a Membership basis. Judgments can be accessed through: Part name, Advocate, Date of judgment and more importantly through Free text search. The Free text based search enables the users to retrieve all relevant judgements of a particular subject.

Cause Lists on Internet

(http://causelists.nic.in)

Causelists contain information on the scheduling of cases to be heard by the courts on the following day. Traditionally, the advocates receive the cyclostyled/printed copies of a day’s Cause List not before 8:00 PM. Some High Courts send the Cause List data on floppy to the printers for printing thousands of copies. This process costs each High Court lakhs of rupees every year. Now the Cause Lists of Supreme Court and all High Courts are available on NIC web servers. Though the High Courts are maintaining both the cyclostyled copies and the Internet version for the time being, all the courts have been suggested to replace the cyclostyled version and bring out only the Internet version. By making the Cause Lists available on the Internet, none of the High Courts is incurring any expenditure as they are using the already available infrastrusture and software of NIC. The Cause Lists on Internet facilitates the advocates to generate their own cause-lists consisting of his/her own cases. Retrieval can be made through the name of either petitioner or respondent and court-wise, judge-wise or entire Cause List can be generated.

Daily Orders on Internet

(http://www.dailyorders.nic.in )

The daily orders of Supreme Court, Delhi High Court are available on the web, immediately after they are signed by the Judges. These orders are only for information to the litigants since the official copy of the signed orders has to be obtained through normal channels. The databases are maintained by the respective courts. The Free text based search enables the users to access relevant orders of the court on the same subject. It also helps the users in accessing orders without knowing the case no. or party name.

Following tribunals/quasi judicial authorities also have their web sites:

Appellate tribunal for Electricity
http://aptel.gov.in/

Central Administrative Tribunal
http://cgat.gov.in/

Company Law Board
http://clb.nic.in/

Customs Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
http://cestat.gov.in/

Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai
http://www.drat.tn.nic.in/

Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai
http://drt1chennai.tn.nic.in/

Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai
http://drt2chennai.tn.nic.in/

Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore
http://drtcbe.tn.nic.in/

Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
http://itat.nic.in/

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur
http://itat.nic.in/

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
http://www.trai.gov.in/

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
http://www.tdsat.nic.in/

National Human Rights Commission
http://nhrc.nic.in/

Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission
http://rshrc.nic.in/

State Human Rights Commission Tamilnadu
http://www.shrc.tn.nic.in/

West Bengal Human Rights Commission
http://wbhrc.nic.in/

Railway Claims Tribunal
http://rct.nic.in/

Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction
http://www.bifr.nic.in/

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://ncdrc.nic.in/

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://delhistatecommission.nic.in/

Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://kscdrc.kar.nic.in/

Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://www.mpscdrc.nic.in/

Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://scdrc.up.nic.in/

West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://wbconsumers.nic.in/statecommission.htm

Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://scdrc.ap.nic.in/

Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
http://goagrahak.nic.in/dailyboards.htm

The begining

This was written almost a year back, but the context seems even more relevant today. As I sat thinking of what should be my initial post here, I decided to repost this. From here begins my journey of banter.

 

The indifference and apathy of the powers-that-be qua those with disabilities is increasing by the day. Today, I was once again shocked to read the news item appearing in the following link.

 

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200610051719.htm

One, those who are entrusted with public dealing are not educated about the rights available to these special friends of ours. Secondly, when confronted, the officials would in almost all cases be rude and unaccomodating taking shelter under ambiguous circulars and notifications.

 

I had the unfortunate ocassion of handling such a situation in a case decided last year of a student who had dyslexia had excelled despite the peculiar circumstances he was in. While the Court, having regard to the case, tried its best to persuade the Administration, the Administration was adamant and took umbrage under an insensitive law and policy. The Court’s helplessness is apparent from the Judgement.

 

************************************************************

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

W.P.(C) 12761/2005

 

MASTER VENKATESH BHATNAGAR ….. Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Nair, Advocate.

 

versus

 

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS …. Respondents
Through Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Advocate for
Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

 

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

 

O R D E R
11.08.2005

 

Application was made on behalf of the Petitioner for changing subjects from Social Science to Painting by the School concerned, which request was allowed by the CBSE keeping the Petitioner’s circumstances in view.

 

The Petitioner had appeared in the Common Entrance Test, 2005 and was found meritorious for admission to the Diploma in Computer Engineering. However, at the time when the fees were being deposited, by the Petitioner, his candidature has been cancelled by Respondent No.2, Board of Technical Education, Delhi acting through Respondent No.3, Gobind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic on the grounds that the Petitioner had not studied Social Science as one of his subjects in the Xth Class. The minimum eligibility as contained in the Information Bulletin for Admission to Full Time Diploma Programme in Polytechnics, CET-2005:
“Passed Xth class of 10+2 or Matric or any other exam recognized as equivalent to Xth class exam conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) or an equivalent recognized board with minimum 45% marks in the aggregate of five subjects securing minimum 33% marks in each of English, Maths, Science (separately in Theory and Practical), Social Science and one additional language (which reflects higher marks).”

 

Since the Petitioner has not appeared in Social Science at the stage of Class X, his candidature has been cancelled. It has been contended that in the Common Entrance Test there are no questions pertaining to Social Science. The argument that this subject may not be essentially relevant for Computer Engineering is indeed an attractive one. A review by the Respondent may be necessary.

 

Regrettably, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefits of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since for reasons which I find inexplicable, only physical disabilities of three kinds are contemplated by that Act. This Court had occasion to observe the possible incongruity in this Statute in the context of a person suffering from heart ailment in Kumar Bharat Prasand Narain Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India, 2005 (5) AD (DELHI) 513.

 

Parliament may consider whether amendments are called for.

 

In a case where a mental disorder or disability is being suffered there appears to be no justification to exclude such persons from the meagre 3% reservation for the disabled. This is especially so because of the existence of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 which could possibly bring succour to the Petitioner if the Act is amended. Had the Petitioner been eligible for consideration under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the impasse in which he find himself may not have transpired at all.

 

The marks obtained by the Petitioner indicate that he has overcome his affliction. But nevertheless he has been shut out from pursuing a course in which he has already proved his merit. Educators are becoming too bureaucratic.

 

Unfortunately for the Petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would ordinarily not issue Writs of Mandamus or any other Orders which would have the effect of re-writing norms which have been spelt out well in advance by the Respondents concerned. Therefore, although the Petitioner is entitled to special consideration, which he has not received at the hands of the Board of Technical Education, Delhi which has obdurately stuck to its minimum eligibility norms and thus no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.

 

The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.

 

Sd/-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J
AUGUST 11, 2005
http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=170539&yr=2005