Thursday, June 23, 2005

Day of Thunder

Hazaar thanks to Kiruba's blog, On a lovely day I met Rahul, Shashank and Sriram, three friendly & motivated guys at The Royal Enfield Showrroom cum Office at Besant Nagar, Chennai.
After ensuring my identity, they parted with a brand new Royal Enfield Thunderbird (with some petrol filled in its tank!!) to ride happily for one whole day (& night too).
Thunderbird, a cousin of my dream machine Royal Enfield Bullet (Gazzat ki savari) has the gear shift on the left hand(leg) side and break on the right unlike the Bullet (like most other bikes).The front wheel has disk break and the rear the usual drum break. This bike had five forward gears to make an entry level car feel shy. Low seat, conveniently placed handlebar are the special features gaining superiority even over the Bullet. A heavy bike loaded with a 350 CC engine with awesome power made me feel like the boss when I hit the road. Due to its great design the weight of the bike could be little felt.
For the rugged nature of the bike, gear shift were comparitively smoother. The front panel had a tachometer,a speedometer, an Odometer and a trip meter. I was surprised to see the black panel near the keyhole comeup live when I turned on the indicators. The dull black finish of the panel even suppressed the presence of an electric panel underneath- really cute.
As far as the riding, I could reach 90 KMPH in an empty road, with my wife screaming from the pillion I didnt have guts to pull the throttle any further. The greatness of this bike is not just in the speed you can achieve but in the power it has in its chest to pull. I was able to overtake a MTC bus being in the 4th gear with ease that too in Pondy Bazaar area. That whole day I spent mostly on road. I had a great exciting time with the machine and had to give it back the next day.
When I was a kid, I used to call the Bullet as 'budu budu' after the exhilarating sound it makes but Thunderbird comes with a new kind of exhaust so the familiar sound is missing. Bullet and Thunderbird are no doubt Hummers among bikes in India.
People wanting to have a similair experience may get in touch with these friends at Royal Enfield office.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Sleeping in Court Room

Court room humour get passed on from generation to generation among lawyers. Here is one which I liked to be very hilarious. This happenned during the English regime,
The Climate of Madras, sometimes due to the high degree of humididty becomes unbearably hit in the middle of the day (even in those days). It is difficult for judges somewhat advanced in age to struggle against the soporific effect of having to sit in the same place and listening to the drone of long arguments. These days it is called the graveyard hour
Eardley Norton (A senior advocate of those days, Norton Street in Mandaveli is named after him) was arguing a first appeal in which the questions involved were of a dry and uninteresting charecter which even a Norton could not make lively.
Chief Justice. Sir John Wallis was hearing the case. Norton went on citing decisions and reading out long passages from them. While so Norton noticed that Sir John Wallis had slipped into a quiet nap. And the Duffdar (the guy who calls names of the parties thrice in movies but in real courts his job is something else and he does not stand behind the judge holding a stick during the hearings) of the court was also enjoying his nap sitting and leaning against the dias; this made Norton irritated.
Norton suddenly pushed down the entire pile of books which fell down on the wooden floor with a loud thump. The sleeping Duffdar shot up from his sleep and so also the chief justice who woke up with a jerk
"I am sorry, my Lord" said Norton. "why, what is the matter Mr. Norton" asked the Chief Justice.
"oh! Nothing my Lord" said Norton "it is only the impertinence of that Duffdar to think that he can go to sleep in open court, just as if he is also a Judge.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Who is the black sheep

In law it is always the intention to commit an offence which is punishable and the mere act as such is not punishable unless it is done with criminal intention.
I recently came across a learned advocate arguing in the court that his client who was caught picking pocket, did not gain even twenty rupees from his victim and so he be treated with mercy. The judge immediately said "Your client has been twice unfortunate" and proceeded to sentence the accused.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Principles of Natural Justice.

These are the guiding priciples, the basic tenets of Law. The most important of the principles of Natural Justice is 'Audi Alterm Partem' that is 'No man can be condemned unheard'. This is an universal principle.
Governments before passing any order that could be detrimental to anyone shall give that person an opportunity to putforth his case before proceeding against him. Similairly the employers before passing any order affecting their employee shall give the employee concerned an opportunity (by way of show cause notices and departmental enquiries etc.,). Failure to afford an opportunity of being heard will result in the order being set aside and even compesation in certain cases.
What I have said here of Governments and Employers are just examples and the principle of 'Audi Altern Partem' is not limited to these examples but apply to everybody including the courts (although no one can seek compensation in the rare event of a violation of the principles of natural justice by the courts)
Hence forth if you want to call someone a fool provide him an opportunity to show cause why he shouldnt be called as such.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

P.A.Qs

If you are influenced by Chakkarapani's web site and think these too are preemptively answered questions. Please be informed that I did not preempt these questions.
Here when I say P.A.Q I mean Prabhukarthik Asked these Questions. (in his comment to my earlier post named Pro Bono) As I really saw a potential to write a post in his questions, I decided to answer them in here

Kattai panchayatai ozhikka mudiyuma? [Can forceful mediation be erradicated?] I keep hearing that Lawyers themselves and sometimes Policemen are involved often.

When parties willingly submit to such meathods, little could be done to curb this. The courts are taking very serious note of this menace and doing their best to eliminate. When influential people are involved in such things, it becomes very difficult to ward of that evil. Needless to say that there is no legal sanctity to such mediations unlike Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) where the courts themselve would encourage the parties to mutually settle among themselves to resolve the dispute than invite the courts to pass judgment over the issues.

Why is that most of the lawyers seek political affiliation?, Of all the professions - doctors, engineers, CAs, why is that lawyers such a strong link with politicans?

There seems to be no real reason as to why there is such a link. Right from the days of freedom struggle, lawyers have been actively involved in the nation building process (Gandhiji, Nehru, Ambedkar, Rajaji and the like) I also do not think that the lawyers involving in politics is a phenomenon unique to India.
If you are talking of corrupt politicians, I feel they are corrupt because of being a politician not solely because they are lawyers.

How far is it ethically correct for a lawyer to defend someone when its clearly known that such a person has committed such an act?

There is something called the 'due process of law'. No one excepting the courts should judge a person of having committed an offence even if he voluntarily confesses . Law has sanctioned procedures for trial and it is the burden of the State to prove the offence and that too beyond resonable doubt. It becomes the duty of the lawyer to ensure that the procedures and rights gauranteed to his client are scruplously adhered. It is also the duty of the Court to ensure that an advocate is engaged to defend the accused unless he specifically gives up such a right and chooses to defend himself.
The bottomline: "to defend the client and ensure that he is given a fair trial is an advocate's reponsibility. "

The law provides that the discussion between the lawyer and a client is privy to them(is that the right word?). Leave aside the Law,is it ethically correct?

Advocates are prohibitted from disclosing without the client's consent, professional communications received as instructions in the course of employment. Now, there being a clear statutory prohibition on disclosure how are we to test the ethics. However, there are exceptions to the prohibition, such as communications made for criminal purposes and those comming to the knowledge of the advocate after commencement of the employmnt.
Please see the following 3 illustrations given in the Indian Evidence Act.

(a) When a client asks his attorney to defend in the case of forgery committed by him, the communication betweeen the client and attorney is protected from disclosure, since the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose.

(b) If a client asks his advocate to sue for possession of property by the use of the forged deed; this being in furtharance of a criminal purpose is NOT protected from disclosure.

(c) 'A' being charged with embezzelment, retains 'B' his lawyer to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, 'B' observes that an entry has been made in 'A's account books charging 'A' with the sum said to have been embezzeled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. As this has been done after the commencement of the employment is NOT protected from disclosure.
Vasu please dont take it in a negative sense. I think these questions loom large to an average person.You are our legal representative adhaan ketten.

I am only happy and thankful to you for giving me an opportunity to write what I have learnt. But I cannot be your legal representative.
Legal Representative is a phrase denoting the person who comes in the place of a deceased litigant. That is to say if a case is filed against 'A' and if 'A' dies when it is pending, it is the obligation of the person who had filed the case to bring on record 'A's legal representatives and continue the case against them. (ususally it is the successors to the estate who are legal representatives). No one can maintain a case against a dead person. Similairly a dead person also cannot maintain a suit and hence the case will have to be continued by his L.Rs. There have been cases which have been fought by generations on either side.
This is one thing which happens as a routine in civil cases. Earlier to the family courts being established, marital disputes were tried in civil courts. It was on one such occassions that a wife had filed an application against her husband for 'restitution of conjugal rights'. The husband died in the meantime and hence the wife's lawyer was representing to the court about the respondent's death, without any second thought the Hon'ble judge immediately adjourned the matter directing the petitioner to take steps to bring on record the L.Rs of the deceased respondent. :-))

Another one: What is the difference between BL and LLB?.

Both only mean Bachelor of Laws, though LLB is an acronym of Legum Legis Baccalaureus. Laws being a faculty which can neither be grouped under Science nor Arts, Undergrads in Laws are awarded LLB, LLM [Legum Legis Magister] to the PGs and LLD [Legum Legis Doctor] to the doctorates. But a few universities confer these degrees as B.L., M.L., and Ph.D. Even such of those who award LLB only call the candidate a Bachelor of Laws.