हिंदी

The Delhi High Court in the case Amit Sahni v. GNCTD, has been told by the administrative side that additional commercial courts will be functional within six months in the national capital and that efforts were being made to ensure that for the same, the requisite infrastructure is made available. While taking the statement on record, the bench comprising of J Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed and disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filled by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking establishment of 42 Commercial Courts in the city, as notified by the Delhi government last year, to ensure speedy redressal of commercial cases. The Court added that on the basis of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of, pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Consequently, the liberty is granted to the petitioner by the court to approach the court in case if any needs arise to petitioner in future. At present, according to the affidavit filled by the Registrar General of Delhi High Court, at present, 64 posts of District Judge (Commercial Court) were sanctioned in Delhi Higher Judicial Service and against these 64 posts, only 22 Courts of District Judge (Commercial Courts) were functional. However, The Affidavit stated that at present, there is a shortage of courtrooms in the court complexes in Delhi to start 42 additional commercial courts, immediately. The remaining 96 under construction court rooms are handed over and the process of establishing 42 new commercial courts may be initiated. It was observed that the Delhi government was directed to file its counter affidavit within 3 weeks, specifically disclosing the status with regard to creation of infrastructure for setting up 42 Commercial courts. Therefore, it was also directed to Registrar General to disclose the position with regard to availability of courtrooms and judicial officers. In the present case, the plea averred that efficiency of Legal System and the time taken to resolve the commercial disputes is an extremely important factor in deciding the growth of investment and overall social development and economic of the nation. Further, it was added that the Cabinet had approved the creation of 42 additional dedicated Commercial Courts for the capital and for appointments of ancillary staff. The plea states that as against the world best practice towards timeline for disposal of commercial disputes of 164 days and Delhi takes 747 days in deciding a commercial dispute. The plea urged that it is essential to appoint 42 dedicated Commercial Courts as notified by the Government of Delhi on April 13, 2021, in furtherance of cabinets approval dated March 22, 2021

The Rajasthan High Court in the case Vikram Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary & Ors observed and has granted the protection from arrest to an Advocate’s clerk, who forwarded a WhatsApp message stating that “religious war has started, in Udaipur, bravo finish the pigs. The petition is filled by the petitioner, seeking for quashing of an First Information Report (FIR) registered on information of respondent-Nadim Kadir for offences punishable under Sections 295A and 153A of the Indian penal Code, 1860. The petitioner further sought for protection of his life and liberty. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid message was a “forwarded” message and by mistake and it was it was sent to a group of “advocate’s clerk”. Further, the counsel added that the petitioner deleted the message, pleaded sorry and asked for pardon. The counsel submitted that nothing happened due to the aforesaid WhatsApp message and hence, the offences alleged are not made out. The bench comprising of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner shall not be interested till further order with condition that petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case, in the meantime. The Court further directed the state-respondents to ensure protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and the petitioner family which cannot be at stake otherwise than the due procedure established by law. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Deepak Chauhan and Bhuwnesh Kumar Sharma and the counsel appearing for the respondent, PP Chandragupt Chopra.

Recommended For You

About the Author: - -