A bitter legal dispute between two City brokers has taken a dramatic twist after key witness claimed that he received death threats the night before giving evidence.

Tom Stevenson, a broker employed by Tullett Prebon, received several threatening anonymous phone calls, including a threat to “slaughter” his family, the High Court was told. The calls have been reported to the police.

Mr Stevenson was due to testify this week in a heated row over staff poaching between Tullett, a leading interdealer broker, and BGC Partners, its fiercest rival. Mr Stevenson was one of several Tullett brokers offered large sums to jump ship to BGC this year.

Mr Stevenson’s testimony was delayed after it was revealed that he had received the calls at his home on Wednesday night. Judge Rupert Jack ordered BT, Mr Stevenson’s phone service provider, to hand over details of the calls, which revealed that they were made from a pay-as-you-go mobile phone on the O2 network.

Yesterday the judge issued a new order demanding that O2 disclose the name of the person to whom the phone was registered. O2 had not complied with the order by the time the court adjourned yesterday afternoon.

Technology experts said that it may not be possible to identify the caller because pay-as-you-go phones and SIM cards can be bought for cash without registration. Users are able to give a false identity when buying them.

BGC said it was “shocked” at the revelation. There was no suggestion that it was behind the calls. Mr Stevenson is a key witness for Tullett, which is suing BGC for allegedly conspiring to recruit about 50 of its top brokers.

Twelve Tullett brokers resigned from the firm to go to BGC in March, including Mr Stevenson’s former manager, James Hall, who received a signing payment of £750,000, according to court documents. Mr Stevenson was one of three brokers who initially agreed to leave Tullett for BGC but later backed out. His evidence is considered crucial to Tullett’s case.

Tullett claims the poaching was masterminded by Tony Verrier, its former chief operating officer, who defected to BGC this year. Mr Verrier is accused of using Mr Hall and other senior Tullett staff as “recruiting sergeants” to encourage them to follow him to BGC.

Tullett claims that BGC set aside £40 million to lure away its employees. According to court documents, Mr Verrier and BGC spent several months attempting to woo the brokers, with meetings at expensive London restaurants. The brokers were promised large sums to join BGC, including £225,000 for Mr Stevenson.

Tullett has accused the departing brokers of orchestrating a “sham” constructive dismissal situation at BGC’s direction to release them from their contracts. It has also accused the brokers of deliberately misplacing mobile phones to destroy evidence of the plot.

Mr Verrier and BGC claim their approaches were conducted legally. BGC’s lawyers told the court that its attempts to lure Tullett staff were normal in a “tough” and “tribal” industry.

In a counter claim, BGC has accused Tullett of inducing Mr Stevenson and two other brokers to back out of so-called forward contracts they signed with BGC, thus depriving it of substantial future earnings.

The trial, which ended its seventh week yesterday, is the latest in a series of legal disputes between the two companies. It mirrors a case that Tullett has brought in the US in which it has accused BGC of poaching 164 brokers in Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The case continues.Mbt Lami  Mbt Chapa   MBT   Mbt Sport   Mbt m walk

A history of threats

• Executives at AIG, the troubled US insurance group, were threatened after it emerged that employees had received $160 million in bonuses after the company was bailed out by the Government.

• Sir Fred Goodwin, former RBS chief executive, left the country with his family after reportedly receiving death threats. His home in Edinburgh was attacked by vandals amid outrage over his £700,000-a-year pension.

• Vanni Treves received death threats after taking over Equitable Life in 2001 when the mutual was pushed to the brink of collapse. More than a million policyholders were left out of pocket.

• Several death threats using literary references were sent to a lawyer at Hermitage Capital Management, a hedge fund that has accused a group of Russian police officers and tax officials of fraud. (Michael Herman)

A judge is to deliver his ruling in a row a council’s decision to impose age limits on taxi cabs in a city hosting the Ryder Cup…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: cathedral city. The blog is also related to: counties city.

So Fallon and I are kind of obsessed with lame court shows like People’s Court and Judge Judy. They’re totally ridiculous and feature some really hard up people. Our favourite one is Judge Alex, or as we call him Judge Eagle for his likeness to the Eagle from the Muppets. Anyway, Judge Eagle features the low-classiest of low classy participants. It is ridiculous and that is why it’s amazing.

There is another show called Divorce Court on which other low classy people resolve their divorces for the world to see. It is this program combined with a talk about fathers rights that led me to think up what could be the most amazingly low classy court show of all time. ABORT COURT!

The premise is rather self-explanatory. A woman gets pregnant and she wants to keep it but her potential BabyDaddy does not. What to do? Go on Abort Court! A judge would weight each of their cases and ultimately decide whether or not they should keep the baby. This is obviously ridiculous although I do actually think it’s kind of unfair that men get no say on whether or not their lady friends go through with a pregnancy or not.

Be honest, you would totally watch Abort Court.

ABORT COURT!

Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, also known as ‘Bluidy Mackenzie’ was a lawyer and lord advocate in the late 1600s and one of the most infamous hanging judges. As lord advocate, he was made minister in charge of the fate of the ‘Covenanters’, religious protesters arguing towards protestant law enforcement in Scotland. The inhumanity of his prosecution towards the ‘Covenanters’ gained him the nickname ‘Bluidy Mackenzie’ due to his responsibility for the deaths of over 18,000 men. He died in 1691 and was buried in Greyfriars Churchyard in Edinburgh.

In 1990, the tomb of George Mackenzie was broken into and two days later the unexplained events began. There have been an unbelievable number of alleged attacks in the last few years with a reported 500 documented incidents including 190 people collapsing. Visitors to his grave have reported bruises, scratches, gouge marks, bites and bafflingly even a number of broken fingers. One woman obtained rope marks around her neck as if she had been hung. Reverend Colin Grant attempted to perform an exorcism on the area with his son and two journalists as witnesses but claimed the forces were too overpowering and had to stop as he feared for his life. Two weeks later Colin Grant died of a heart attack.

The events were too much for Edinburgh City Council to take; subsequently they closed that area of the graveyard to the public, although ghost tours still visit the area and the spectators are recurrently haunted.

I haven’t been to the ‘red light’ district in Amsterdam, but I’m reading a John Irving book that features it in one chapter. So I was thinking that the behavior of the prostitutes,  in order to get business is extremely competitive because they’re all basically offering the same thing. It’s just that some of them are a little classier or maybe prettier or thinner or whatever. What they have to do is flaunt it.

Rich people, rich society, in Joburg anyway, is just like that.  It’s the way people behave.  At least the prostitutes – in their defense – are doing it to make a living. Not the A-list Joburgers. They stuff it in your face, they aren’t artistically posing nude – they’re blatantly fucking naked!!! Watch as they pull up next to you in one of their fancy big cars. They want you to see – exposing themselves without a flicker of modesty.

I know that I’ve wanted to be that. I saw the display and just as they expected, wanted it. How sad. How pathetic.

Is it possible to be rich and not flaunt it in order to get people to envy you? Is it a source of motivation to get ordinary people to envy you? Does it have to be such a blatant pose? I know how it feels to cruise up to an old beatup in your brand new Discovery, because I’ve driven one. Not mine. And it still causes these sort of superiority issues. Poor people are not good. If I’m rich ‘they’ look up to me. I’m envied.

But any fool can buy a car. Any fool can buy an iPhone. It’s not like they invented it, or designed it, they just paid up the inflated price. Who’s the fool?

I’m coming right, my thinking IS changing. I don’t need to be rich anymore. I just need to be more in other ways. More than I am now in character, dignity, integrity… Aspiring to be rich is depressing. Look at the rich – not their stuff – look at them. Do you want to be like that? Do you want to become a judge of all things less than you? Can you see how that will end up?

It’s wise to judge only yourself – your judgement of others is probably so completely wrong anyway. Leave the judging to God. Hope that when he judges you, he doesn’t use your harsh critical measure. Hope that he doesn’t despise your lack of fine clothes, shoes and flashy car. Hope that he is merciful because you did have so much, and all you wanted was more. More, so that you could become worse, look down on others, be more aloof.

The Sun (always a reliable source) revealed today that Hip Hop mega-star Eminem wants to be a judge on the X Factor. He is quoted as saying:

The Daily Star has a helpful guide to how young Cheryl Cole fans can look like their favourite X Factor judge. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Star estimates she has cost £250,000 transforming herself from ‘waitress to über-chic chick’, including £40,000 on make-up, £145,000 on clothes and ‘up to £3,000′ on fake tan. Presumably not on each visit.

Source

Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” acts. The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue (Long Island).

Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest — who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money. YOU OWN IT: Greg Horoski won his battle to keep his Patchogue one-level ranch home, as a judge called OneWest bank’s foreclosure efforts against Horoski and his wife “repulsive.”

“The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,” Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner’s scathing ruling against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.

It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties. The Horoskis — who had been paying only interest on their mortgage — had no equity in the home. Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta.” Dealing with the bank, he said, was “like dealing with organized crime.” OneWest said, “We respectfully disagree with the lower court’s unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal.”

It claimed it “has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.” The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.

Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000. In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business. The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.

It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski’s health problems. After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.

Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings. OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank “must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple].” The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it’s trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.

Source: New York Post

Press Play

(but keep reading)

Alabama is the only state in the country that allows standardless judicial override: Alabama judges can, and frequently do, reject jury verdicts for life without parole and impose the death penalty. New research from EJI shows that more than 80 people have been sentenced to death by judges even though their juries decided that death was not the appropriate punishment. Fueled by “tough on crime” rhetoric in partisan judicial elections, judicial override in Alabama is on the rise. In 2006, 30% of new death sentences were imposed by judges who rejected jury verdicts for life without parole.

Alabama is the only state that gives a trial judge unrestricted authority to overrule the jury’s sentencing decision. Florida and Delaware permit judicial override only in restricted circumstances.

Racially discriminatory practices by Alabama prosecutors, including the elimination of African American jurors because they appeared to be of “low intelligence,” were examined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia, in oral argument on October 20, 2008. Bryan Stevenson argued on behalf of Earl McGahee, who was tried by an all-white jury in a majority-black county after the State excluded every African American from jury service.

Mr. McGahee, who is African American, was tried for capital murder in Dallas County, Alabama, in 1986, when the county was over 55% African American. During jury selection, the Dallas County prosecutor eliminated all of the African Americans. After striking eight potential African American jurors for legal cause, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to eliminate all 16 of the remaining potential African American jurors.

This practice resulted in Mr. McGahee being tried by an all-white jury in a county that was over 55% African American, and it violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), which prohibits exclusion of potential jurors based on their race, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The prosecutor asserted that he removed six of the potential jurors because of their alleged “low intelligence.” This assertion had no support in the record and came from a prosecutor whose office has repeatedly engaged in illegal racial discrimination during jury selection. The prosecutor did not ask these six jurors any questions about their educational backgrounds, grades, or IQ, but claimed to rely on the recommendation of an unidentified volunteer expert, supposedly in the “field concerning determination of jurors with reference to intelligence level,” who had little opportunity to observe these jurors.

The reasons the prosecutor gave for many of the other African American jurors he eliminated were contradicted in the record and were equally applicable to white potential jurors who served on Mr. McGahee’s jury. The prosecutor explained that he removed the final African American juror because he did not want him to be the only black person on the jury.

Mr. McGahee appealed these issues to the Alabama state courts, which did not address the racially discriminatory history of this prosecutor and his office or the prosecutor’s explicit reliance on race and the purported “low intelligence” of potential African American jurors as a basis for removal from jury service. The federal district court found that parts of this claim were procedurally defaulted and erroneously refused to address them.

Meet Bryan Stevenson the greatest lawyer in America today.

Happy Thanksgiving

Charlie P.

Sally Fields as Sybil (1976)

Who Couldn’t Use a Little Sometimes?

In John 8:7, Jesus said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  That woman had committed adultery, but the inspiration for this post is nowhere near that magnitude or even in that direction whatsoever.  The verse just popped into my head and seemed to fit somehow.

The inspiration for this blog is the seemingly natural human tendency to judge others and form opinions of people based on random interactions with them.  People are often misunderstood.

Perhaps someone is having a bad day and is a little grumpy.  That doesn’t mean they are normally angry, hateful people.  Maybe someone is a little sad, but that doesn’t make them chronic depressives.  Some people are more carefree and choose not to stress over everything, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care.

Then there are some who may truly stand to benefit from some professional psychotherapy just to talk things out and be reassured that they are not “crazy”.  Some people may seem to have it all together in public but fall apart at home and constantly worry about what others think.  Worse yet, there are people who assume from a person’s actions that they need professional help.  It’s not their place to decide such a thing.

Picture the following:

1. A person is perceived as an attention seeker due to outrageous behavior and is outcast or shunned.  Maybe that person truly is an outgoing and fun-loving person.

2. A person seems to be a perfectionist, always worried about things being “just so”.  Many times this is a sign of insecurity, and that person just needs a little more assurance and recognition.

3. A person may appear lazy and not to care about anything.  Often these are the people who lack self-confidence or are overwhelmed and don’t know where to begin.

4. A person may seem to have diarrhea of the mouth.  Well, this one may be true.  We just have to deal with that!  :)

Never assume you have a person all figured out before taking the time to really get to know that person.  I’ve seen a lot of people avoided based on opinions and assumptions, and I think that’s really sad.

I try not to care what people think of me, but I’m certainly the object of assumptions, too.  I’m not an excellent conversationalist in person or on the phone.  I trip over my own words and sometimes make no sense at all.  So I avoid phone calls, and I’m sure I sometimes appear to be a lunatic in person.  There may be a bit of truth to that one!  I am a bit of a loon, but it keeps me young at heart!

Remember what they say about assuming: ASS / U / ME  …

This proverb struck a cord with me today as I was reading.  It reads in the NLT version, “Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die.”  That verse reminded me instantly of the dire straights that our young and old African American brothers are going through.  By the thousands we are hearing daily, of lives that have been wrongfully put on hold because of faulty testimony and tainted evidence, only to find out 22 years, as in one case, later that they could not have committed the horrible crime.

Verse 12 goes on to say, “Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it.  For God knows all hearts, and he sees you.  He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”

Wow!  This give me reassurance not to be worried about how evil people get away with their spoils here on earth.  This verse reminds me God is the judge.

Help Fix the System

Be wise.

The last couple of weeks there has been a huge debate on Eric Holders decision to prosecute the 9/11 conspirators in civilian criminal court instead of a military tribunal. I’m not sure why the decision was made, I believe it probably has more to do with National Security than anything political. I believe in civilian court if things get to close to revealing something of a confidential nature prosecutors can site  “ it’s a matter of National security” to keep things from coming out. If they’re tried in a Military Tribunal which is not a public hearing everything must be put on the table, prosecutors can’t site “a matter of National Security” because theoretically everything that would be in a military tribunal would fall in that category so that can’t be used and tactics or secrets could come out and you know as well as I do even though it’s not a public hearing it doesn’t mean it’s a private one.

But that’s not what gave me the clue that he (Holder) made the right decision. What did it was last night Former Bush Administration Vice President Dickhd Cheney was on some radio show and said Holder was wrong and the Bush Admin. probably wouldn’t have made that decision. They would have PROBABLY tried them in a military tribunal. Well that did it because the Bush admin. DID NOT make one right decision during there two terms in office.

Also called as Aakaash (space) Mudra.

Keyword for this Mudra is “expand”.

• This Mudra activates Jupiter inside you and brings abundance in your life.
• It will expand your horizon and get wider views of life and you will become a good judge of the life’s events.
• The teacher in you will be activated too.
• Person who is mean minded and selfish will become broad minded and selfless.
• This generates blue energy and thus activates throat Chakra.

Chant Bija Mantra “Om Hum Namaha” while doing this Mudra.

Touch the middle finger with thumb on both the hands

Criminal justice sytem

From my book CHILDHOOD MEMOIRS

 The words crime, punishment, criminal etc. were coined in the feudal era. At the time of the the capitalist revolution in France ( 177 5 ), when wooly-eyed writers and intellectuals took it as the true revolution ,words like liberty, fraternity and equality came into vogue. Victor Hugo’s Le Mirable  for the first time, made us aware of the fact that  a thief is also a human being. Alas! We have forgotten Hugo. Is  his name mentioned in any text book?

No wonder. It is highly inconvenient to mention his name, now that money is the supreme deity (in Malayalam the word for a billionaire is KODEESWARAN !). How else can we explain public linching of a poor harijan boy in front of TV cameras? If we claim to be humanists, we should have intervened to save the poor boy. Let us re-read Hugo. The word criminal must be deleted from dictionary.

We are all fallible. I used to travel in DTC bus, paying the minimum fare, until I was caught. Did I earn money this way? It is just human tendency to enjoy any gain, howsoever pitifully trivial it may be! Yet I am not a miser. We have to continuously improve our own thinking, attitude, outlook and behaviour. (To thine own conscience, be true). The system should help us to become a true gentleman, in every sense of the term! Wash away the criminal in me. Lockup, police brutality and the jail will only make me a hardened criminal. Parents and teachers have empowered themselves to beat a child whose sole parent is God. Will He be happy with our conduct?

A pick pocket or smuggler is let away with light punishment. Their patrons are in the good books of the police. Does the system have any way of reforming a criminal? The latter is just a tool .There is no law for punishing the real villain who works behind the scene. This aspect has to be taken care of.

In the proposed set up, a team of dedicated people will conduct a thorough probe into all aspects of even a petty crime and recommend measures to eradicate it forever. If only an individual is concerned, he can be given work of cleaning the gutter, removing garbage or some such useful work. Jails can be converted into schools. Hardened criminals  can be chained like slaves and made to work hard.

The investigating team should be headed by a judge (A retired one may be preferred).

The members of the team must be well trained, thoroughly honest and dedicated. The whole department could be under the control of the Chief Justice of India and function independently, without interference from any quarter. All proceedings must be video recorded, but the proceedings must be  in camera, lest others involved may know what is happening and arm themselves accordingly. The culprit shall remain in humane custody. No bail, even if the crime is trivial. The whole lot of lawyers should be asked to go home and tend cattle!

At present they work only to distort or delay the investigation and save the culprit for the sake of money. How do we tolerate this brazen miscarriage of justice?

APPOINTMENTMENT OF JUDGES

Like the election commission, there shall be a permanent judicial commission. Appointment of judges will follow the same pattern as that of MPs (see Democratic Disfunction).T he judges too should work hard from 8 am to 6 pm every day, with weekly holiday by rotation; but they will get suitable salary because they are not elected by the people.

Even a shadow of suspicion shall debar him .Once appointed, he should work for life time, without any age limit, so long as he is healthy and willing to work .Transfer and promotion etc. must also be decided by the commission.

They may be removed any moment, if proved to be incompetent or unhealthy or on grounds for suspicion; otherwise they can serve indefinitely as in the US.(Their system is better in all respects. If their system is a motor car, ours is a bullock cart, with one wheel broken and the animal unable to pull !)

Any person, not necessarily an aggrieved one, on the basis of news ,a first information report may be lodged even by e:mail  The concerned judge shall immediately start investigation ,assisted by CIDs, police etc., but in strict secrecy .Any person may be arrested, including witnesses who shall remain in custody till investigation is over.The people detained must not be allowed to meet each other. All questioning shall be video recorded in the presence of the judge. Refusal to answer a question will be treated as confession .

The judgement shall be given then and there .

The whole system must function independently, without  interference from any quarter. Nobody will even come to know ; how can they meddle ?

The policemen must be like elder brothers to the citizens, in the model of the English police.

This is a very important step back toward economic liberty.  More than half of the congress has co-sponsored the bill (including 80 democrats – so truly bi-partisan) and it asks for one simple thing.  Transparency.  After all, it’s our money, and our government… shouldn’t we have a right to know where all of the money the fed prints out of thin air goes?  This clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUreWxKGOkY) seems to indicate not even they know where it goes!

Update – the hypocrisy – government promises transparency… but does not take opportunities to deliver on that promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRQHsXujpo

More information on auditing the Fed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx-UYvtSqeI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpbW64vRrMc

Update – Freedom Watch – Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU – the Fed’s response (besides hiring the Enron lobbyist)

Congressional report admits economic collapse was government’s fault:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/07/09/congressional-report-blames-the-governement-for-the-mortgage-crisis/

You can’t fairly blame the free market anymore – after all we have not had a true free market in this country for decades.  You can try to blame lack of regulators, but some of the big organizations that they say need regulation had literally hundreds of regulators already… and the answer can’t possibly be to give the federal reserve the power to regulate the banks.  Did you know the federal reserve is a private organization?  It’s a bank… for the banks.  Giving it the power to regulate – isn’t that like allowing banks to regulate themselves?  Actually reading the plan, one learns that many of the ‘regulations’ become optional anyway (so it’s a big bank regulating (in many ways) itself… but only if it wants to).  You can read the entire plan here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/june/white%20paper.pdf – and a critique of it here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20147

If I’m wrong about any of this I’d love to hear about it so I can continue the learning process.  If you agree, contact your government here – https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and tell them to support HR 1207 and government transparency.  Also, feel free naturally to forward this to others if you want.

I hope you all are having a wonderful week!  I wish the best to you.

________________________________
From: niladri_shekhar_das_in <niladri_shekhar_das_in@yahoo.co.in>
To: saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 1:02:00 PM
Subject: [SaveIndianFamily] Re: List of articles exchanged during marraige – Format

 
The Judgement dated 21st August, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. states:

Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent
on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry
Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain:

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or
bridegroom, a description of such relationship.

(d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom.

And the full judgement

============ ========= ========= ========= =
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Bail Application No.1711/2007

Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
$ State and Anr. …….
Respondents

Bail Application No.1716/2007

Sh.Harbhajan Singh Chopra …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
$ State and Anr. ……. Respondents

Present: Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Karan Singh, Mr.Santosh Chaurihar,
Mr.Miraj Kain and Mr.Ravinder Singh,
Advs. for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Soni for the State.

Mr.K.K.Manan, Mr.Tarun Goomber,
Mr.Rishikesh Choudhary and
Mr.Gaurav Goswami for respondent No.2.

21.08.2007
DATE OF DECISION: 21.08.2007

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Y

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Y

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Y

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

FIR No.6/2007 dated 3.1.2007
under Section 498-A/406 IPC
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin.

1. Vide Bail Application No.1711/2007, Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks
anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No.1716/2007, Sh.Harbhajan Singh
Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and
father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.
2. At the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in
which Bail Application No.1711/2007 has been drafted by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The same is a verbatim copy of Bail Application No.1716/2007.
4. Use of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar
would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start
operating themselves by clicking a mouse.
5. Little realizing that in Bail Application No.1716/2007 reference
to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. as
father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred
to as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. father-in-law of the
complainant.
6. In the instant case, the misdescription may be trivial. But in
large number of cases I notice that the misdescription is not trivial, more so,
when disputes relate to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881. In said cases description of the accused with reference
to the role assigned becomes relevant. Precious judicial time is wasted in
identifying who is being referred to and in what context reference is being made
pertaining to persons accused of offence and who have filed quashing petitions
challenging the summoning order.
7. It is hoped and expected that learned members of the Bar would
justify them being referred to as ‘learned counsel’. Their being learned must
be reflected in their pleadings.
8. Referring to the facts, why else would a father-in-law and
mother-in-law be seeking bail? Of course, when their daughter-in- law has filed
a complaint resulting in registration of FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.
This has happened in the instant case.
9. Since issue of anticipatory bail has to be decided, reference to
the FIR becomes necessary.

10. Touching upon the salient features of the FIR, complainant
Arti, stated that she met Jitender Singh Chopra, son of the applicants in London
in July 2004 through common friends. She states that the two met a number of
times and around 3rd week of September 2004 decided to get married in Dubai on
30.9.2004 She stated that she and Jitender Singh Chopra came to Delhi and got
engaged. That at the time of engagement presents worth Rs.15 lakhs were gifted
by her parents to the in-laws and relatives of Jitender. That her in-laws gave
her jewellery worth Rs.40 lakhs. That at the asking of her prospective mother-
in-law, for relatives who were not present at the engagement, her mother sent
additional gifts worth Rs.5 lakhs. That marriage between the complainant and
Jitender was solemnized at Dubai on 27.10.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs.
At the time of marriage her mother, relatives and friends gave gifts worth Rs.70
lakhs. Her in-laws gifted her jewellery worth Rs.90 lakhs. Next day her
mother-in-law took away the jewellery for safe keeping. She and her husband
came to Delhi on 3.11.2004 and stayed at the farm house of the in-laws. The
couple celebrated their first Deepawali. On said function her relatives gave
gifts worth Rs.40 lakhs to her husband. That her mother and her relatives gave
her ancestral jewellery worth Rs.1.75 lakhs at said function. That her in-laws
gave her expensive gifts and jewellery worth Rs.80 lakhs. That when they were
at Delhi her brother-in-law tried to force himself upon her. That she was
disgraced by the family of her in-laws who stated that they expected that she
would bring a Mercedes car in her dowry. That when the couple left for their
honeymoon her husband compelled her to drink excessively as also to indulge in
vulgar sexual acts. That since it was her second marriage she did not speak to
anyone. That on 18.1.2005 she and her husband went back to Dubai. For said trip
her husband demanded Rs.25 lakhs from her mother. Her mother arranged Rs.5
lakhs and gave the same to her husband. That her husband demanded more money.
Her mother paid Rs.15 lakhs. That she came back to Delhi on 29.12.2005 and in
spite of requests to hand over her jewellery, none was being returned to her.
That her father-in-law wanted her parents to transfer ownership rights of 2
floors of their house in name of her husband. That her mother-in-law had
retained her jewellery.
11. According to the petitioners the marriage at Dubai was financed
by the petitioners. Entire stay of the family of the bride was paid for by the
petitioners. That after the wedding, the newly wed came to Delhi to celebrate
their first Deepawali and went back to Dubai in February 2005. They took on
rent a villa and resided separately from the petitioners. That the couple
separated due to temperamental differences. That their son sought divorce in
London due to irreconcilable differences. That the FIR was a counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by their son.
12. Before dealing with the rival submissions on the issue whether
petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail or not, it has to be noted that
petitioners as also their second son i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant
sought anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attempts
were made to compromise the matter and in full and final satisfaction of all
claims of the complainant not only the FIR be withdrawn but the couple could
agree for an amicable settlement. Order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge records that a settlement was arrived at pursuant
whereto complainant would be paid Rs.4 crores in cash and a flat at DLF Gurgaon
worth Rs.60 lacs would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, the talks broke
down inasmuch as offer was reduced to Rs.2 crores.
13. Petitioners when charged with attempting to wriggle out of an
agreed settlement explained that their younger son was briefing the counsel and
he was receiving instructions from the husband of the complainant for the reason
any payment under the settlement had to be financed by the husband of the
complainant. That unfortunately, their son i.e. husband of the complainant
could not firm up his mind and for said reason settlement failed.

14. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the applicants
urged that proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a
recovery proceedings. Learned senior counsel urged that the anxiety of the
Court to try and effect a settlement between the warring couple may be a
laudable act but is alien to the exercise of jurisdiction while deciding an
application seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel urged
that the well known parameters viz. gravity of the offence, seriousness of the
allegations constituting the offence, possibility of the accused absconding or
threatening witnesses of the prosecution, inherent probabilities, for and
against the accused are some of the factors which have to be considered by the
Court while deciding an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
15. Expanding the argument, learned senior counsel submitted that
documents annexed as Annexure-C to the petitions conclusively establish that the
petitioners paid the entire bill at Dubai when marriage took place. Drawing
attention to Annexure-D, learned senior counsel urged that the same evidences
that the newly married couple set up separate residence in Dubai. As regards
the petitioners, learned senior counsel urged that they were residents of Delhi.
Their son was settled abroad. Except for participating in the joyous occasion
of the marriage of their son and showering their blessings and gifts upon the
newly wed as also to finance the marriage, the two had no role to play in the
matrimonial life of the couple. Learned senior counsel further urged that
allegations in the FIR are alien to the social norms of the society from which
complainant, her family and the petitioners come from. Learned senior counsel
explained that main items are gifted to the couple at the time of their
marriage. Thereafter, as and when festive occasions occur, small gifts are
exchanged. Learned senior counsel urged that it was unbelievable that at the
time of Deepawali celebrations after the couple got married, complainant’ s
family members would gift to their daughter and her in-laws, gifts worth Rs.1.75
crores. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the allegations of dowry
demand are against the husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. Allegations of
mental and physical cruelty are against the husband save and except a vague
allegation that on one occasion father-in-law threw a plate at the complainant
and abused her as a bitch. Learned senior counsel stated that the two
allegations pertaining to dowry demand against the father-in-law viz that he
expected his daughter-in- law to bring a Mercedes car and a demand for ownership
rights of 2 floors in her parent’s house at Sunder Nagar are false. Learned
senior counsel submitted that the gravement of the allegation against the
mother-in-law is that she retained the jewellery of the complainant.
16. Learned senior counsel urged that in view of the fact that the
complainant and her husband had set up their matrimonial house at Dubai, a
residence separate from that of the petitioners, considering the social
background of the family of the complainant as also the petitioners it was
unbelievable that the complainant would have handed over her jewellery to her
mother-in-law.
17. Fulcrum of opposition by learned counsel for the complainant
centered around the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
regarding a settlement between the parties from which petitioners back tracked.
Learned counsel submitted that the said settlement evidenced the acknowledgment
by the petitioners that the complainant had to be recompensed. Learned counsel
submitted that the jewellery articles of the complainant have yet to be
recovered. Counsel submitted that the complainants have started dissipating
their assets. Thus, counsel urged that no case is made out to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
18. It is not in dispute that the instant marriage was the second
marriage of both parties. Thus, both would be presumed to be aware of not only
their matrimonial obligations but even the matrimonial laws. Judicial
authorities are replete with a caution by the Courts that the unfortunate

tendency to rope in all family members of the in-laws is a growing trend which
has two side effects. Firstly, innocent persons suffer the trauma of a criminal
prosecution and secondly, even the accused get acquitted for the reason, false
implication of innocent persons is followed by presentation of fabricated
evidence before the Court. So inextricably interwoven is truth with lies that
truth cannot be segregated from lies resulting in benefit of doubt being given
even to the accused persons.
19. More often than not, pertaining to dowry, Courts are faced with
a dilemma inasmuch as tax avoidance is the norm in India. Huge volume of black
money in circulation finds expression in ostentatious marriages. But when
called upon to prove that the family had enough assets to justify the stated
gifts gifted at the time of marriage, family members of the girl side have no
answers. They cannot establish the means to justify their capacity to shower
gifts worth crores.
20. In the instant case, before the in-laws of the complainant can
be called upon to account for the gifts given by the parents of the girl, the
parents of the girl would have to establish their means and their capacity to
gift items worth Rs.3 crores to their daughter and her in-laws.
21. As noted above, gravement of the allegations are directed
principally against the husband. No doubt, there is reference against the
petitioners pertaining to dowry demand and retention of jewellery, but, as noted
above, allegations of dowry demand are against the father-in-law and not against
the mother-in-law. Vice versa, allegations pertaining to retention of the
jewellery of the complainant is against the mother-in-law and not the father-in-
law. Thus, if at all, father-in-law may be answerable to a charge under Section
498-A IPC. If at all, mother-in-law may be answerable for a charge under
Section 406 IPC.
22. Qua the mother-in-law a circumstance which stands out is that
her son and her daughter-in- law had a separate residence at Dubai. The couple
was married at Dubai. Whatever may be the jewellery gifted to the complainant
at the time of marriage, there is no material on record that when she along with
her husband came to India they made a declaration to the Customs Authority that
personal jewellery worth crores was being brought by her i.e. the complainant to
India. Greater probability would be that either jewellery of the value alleged
to be gifted to her by the complainant was not gifted to her, or if gifted, the
same was in her custody at Dubai.
23. Pertaining to the father-in-law I find that the allegations are
general. It is not stated in the complaint that because father-in-law desired
that the complainant should bring a Mercedes car he i.e. the father-in-law took
vengeance against the complainant. What is stated in the FIR is that the
father-in-law commented that he expected that the complainant would bring as
part of dowry a Mercedes car.
24. Prima facie, it is one thing to have a desire and express the
same. It is altogether another thing to raise a demand as per the desire.
25. Allegation of mental cruelty against the father-in-law pertains
to an alleged incident when according to the complainant she served cold food to
her father-in-law. Prima facie, said allegation of cruelty does not relate to a
dowry demand.
26. The only other allegation pertaining to transfer of 2 floors in
the house of the complainant’ s parents at Sunder Nagar is without any
particulars i.e. the day or the month when said demand was raised.
27. In the report published as 2006 (6) SCC 736 Indian Oil
Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. in para 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court lamented as
under:-
?13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that

civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests o lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family
disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There
is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle
civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged. ?
28. In para 19 of the report published as (2005) 6 SCC 281 Sushil
Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
?19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace.
But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to
light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique
motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out
the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media
coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures
can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentional provision. Merely because
the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to
unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may,
therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers
of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till
then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing
framework. As noted above the object is to strike a the roots of dowry menace.
But by misuse of the provision a nw legal terrorism can be unleashed. The
provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon.
If the cry of ?wolf? is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may
not be available when the actual ?wolf? appears. There is no question of the
investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They
cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry
tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate
objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view.
It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and
the courts start with the presumptions that the investigating agencies and the
courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that
the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalized a
statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable.
It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is
that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see
that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless
and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no
direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial
evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to
circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.?

29. In the decision dated 23.2.2007 in Crl.M.C. No.7262/2006 Neera
Singh vs. State and Ors. a learned Single Judge of this Court had pains to note
as under:-
?4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent
on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is
made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of
income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist
upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns
and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry
Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not
been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of
Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the
bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to
the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible
after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain:

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or
bridegroom, a description of such relationship.

(d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrate should take cognizance of the
offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever
allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after
demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under
the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be
drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage
which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to
the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is
verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are
not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while
entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statements of the
complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints
are pouring in.?
30. Admittedly, neither complainant nor her family members have
complied with Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents
to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules 1985.
31. Since allegations in the complaint are to the effect that
jewellery and gifts worth crores were given by the parents and relatives of the
complainant, instant case would require a prior investigation by the
investigating officer before petitioners are made to account for the gifts,
whether at all the family of the complainant had the means to shower gifts of
such magnitude.
32. I note that the husband of the complainant is paying to her a
monthly maintenance of Rs.1 lakh.
33. Learned counsel for the State did not urge that the petitioners
are not cooperating with the IO.
34. The special circumstances of the case may be summarized:-
(a) Marriage is a love marriage and took place at Dubai. There is prima
facie evidence that marriage expenses were borne by the in-laws of the
complainant.

(b) The young couple took up separate residence at Dubai and stayed their
after the marriage till they came to India to celebrate their first Deepawali
festival. The complainant stayed with her in-laws for about 10 days. The
couple departed for their honeymoon.
(c) Allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the husband.
Prima facie it appears to be a case of temperamental difference between the
husband and the wife.
(d) There are no allegations of dowry demand against the mother-in-law.
Allegation against her is of retaining the jewellery gifted by her parents as
stated by the complainant to be in the value of over Rs.2 crores. There is no
evidence that jewellery of such magnitude was gifted.
(e) Allegations of dowry demand against the father-in-law only relate to
transfer of ownership rights of 2 floors in a property at Sunder Nagar in the
name of the husband of the complainant. The allegation is of a general nature.
The time, date and month of demand has not been specified.
(f) The couple separated at Dubai. The petitioners did not have a joint
residence with the complainant and thus could not be in possession of her
jewellery.
35. Case is thus made to admit petitioners to anticipatory bail.
While so directing, I am conscious of the failed compromise talks before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge but I cannot ignore the fact that proceedings
for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. I find prima facie
justification of the petitioners that their younger son was briefing the counsel
and was informing the counsel what was being consented to by the son of the
petitioners. If the son of the petitioners back tracks from his commitment,
petitioners cannot be faulted with.
36. I additionally note that the complainant is being paid a
monthly maintenance of Rs.1 lakh by her husband.
37. Petition stands disposed of directing that on the petitioners
surrendering their passport to the Investigating Officer and cooperating at the
inquiry to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, in the event of the
petitioners being arrested by the IO, the petitioners would be released on bail
by the IO on the petitioners furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ – each
with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO in the
above captioned FIR.
38. Needless to state, the petitioners would join the investigation
as and when required by the IO.
39. Copy of the order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for the
petitioners.

21st August, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
dk

— In saveindianfamily@ yahoogroups. com, “Arnab” <arnab221@.. .> wrote:
>
> Ranjana Kumari in her interviews always mentions that please exchange the list of articles that were exchanged during the marraige . What sort of list is it exactly and is this a legal document like an affidavit signed by the girl and her family ?
>
> The same also must be given by the girl and her family . Right ?
>
> This will definitely resolve the streedhan type issues where article lists are bloated all the time.
>
> I know that 498A can still be misused , but does someone has or has any recommendations what this sort of list must contain or what must be the format of this document ? I need to pass this info to a friend who is getting marraied to protect himself from later issues if any on streedhan .
>

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:     * New Members 18     * New Files 5
Visit Your Group Start a New Topic
***SIF*******IMP. NOTICE ********SIF******
To reduce the number of emails you get from the group, you can change over  to digest mode of email delivery(Which compiles 25 emails into one email, there by reducing the emails per day from this group), to do this follow these instructions:

Go to: Edit Membership on the main page of group or click
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saveindianfamily/join
Then change the Message Delivery option to “Daily Digest”

or send an email to saveindianfamily-digest@yahoogroups.com

******SIF***********SaveIndianFamily**********SIF**********
Delhi: 9810611534, 9911119113
Mumbai: 9224335577, 9869323538
Bangalore: 9845143724, 9342853272
Kolkata: 9830151555, 9830927619
Chennai: 9884607376, 9941012958
Hyderabad: 09848280354, 9989146466
More helplines(updated) at:
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/contact-us/helplines.html and
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/contact-us/activists.html

Ah, he punted…first when asked about the issue back in end of October….Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter avoided the question…then in a follow up by staff…he affirms that judges should follow the law….hum???

It was the end of the day when a police officer parked his car in front of the station.  As he gathered his equipment, his K-9 partner, Jake, was barking.  As he glanced back, he noticed a little boy staring in the side window.  “Is that a dog you got back there?”  he asked.   “It sure is,” replied the officer.  Puzzled, the boy looked at him and then towards the back of the car.   Finally he said, ‘What’d he do?’

As we travel through life, we will each come across situations that will lead us to assume the worst of people — but remember, things may not be as they appear. 

www.bibledonate.org and www.fivesimplesteps.org