Jethmalani quits as Kejriwal's counsel, seeks Rs 2 crore fee

TNN
July 26, 2017

New Delhi, Jul 26: Ram Jethmalani has quit as chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's counsel in the civil and criminal defamation cases filed by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley against the CM.jethmalani

Following Kejriwal's denial of having instructed the lawyer to use derogatory language against Jaitley during court proceedings on May 17, the lawyer has written a letter to the CM, accusing him of using even more offensive language against Jaitley during private discussions on the case.

Jethmalani has asked Kejriwal to settle his legal fees amounting to more than Rs 2 cro5re. The lawyer used an offensive word, amounting to accusing Jaitley of being a criminal, during proceedings of the Rs 10-crore defamation case against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders.

Jaitley asked Jethmalani if the word was spoken on his client's instruction. The lawyer replied in the affirmative and Jaitley filed another Rs 10-crore defamation suit against the CM.

Stung by the fresh defamation suit, Kejriwal filed an affidavit in Delhi high court and wrote a letter to Jethmalani saying he had not given any instructions for use of the derogatory word.

In his affidavit, Kejriwal said it was " inconceivable that he would even think of instructing the senior counsel to use such objectionable words". "Neither the defendant (Kejriwal) nor the counsel (Anupam Srivastava) briefing the senior counsel (Jethmalani) gave instructions to the senior counsel to use the objectionable words on May 17, 2017," Kejriwal said in the affidavit.

In response, after conveying his decision to quit as the CM's advocate, Jethmalani also told the CM to settle his legal fee, which, by a conservative estimate, would be over Rs 2 crore. The Delhi government had, this February, cleared a payment of Rs 3.5 crore to Jethmalani, which included Rs 1 crore as retainer and Rs 22 lakh as fee for each appearance in court.

However, the chief minister's office refused to comment on the matter, saying they "have no intimation on Jethmalani withdrawing from the case so far".

Jethmalani said, "Kejriwal has written a letter to me. I have replied to that. I am not going to divulge the details of either of the letters. You ask Kejriwal to make public both the letters. I have promised him not to make it public."

Sources said, in his letter, Jethmalani reminded Kejriwal about many conferences they had at the lawyer's residence and during which he had informed the CM about how PM Narendra Modi, impressed by his relentless fight against black money, had asked him to join BJP in 2010.

The letter also said the CM had shared the lawyer's anguish about BJP doing nothing to keep its election-eve promise to get back black money and deposit Rs 15 lakh in every Indian's bank account and how Jethmalani held Modi and Jaitley responsible for this.

During such conversations, Jethmalani alleged in his letter, Kejriwal had used even more objectionable words against Jaitley. The alleged use of derogatory words by Kejriwal during the conference appeared to have made Jethmalani repeat them during the May 17 proceedings before the HC registrar in the first defamation suit.

Jaitley had filed an application for expediting the recording of evidence in an orderly and fair manner in the first Rs 10-crore defamation suit against Kejriwal and the five AAP leaders for making allegations of corruption against him by them.

Comments

Rajarama Shetty
 - 
Thursday, 27 Jul 2017

Mr. Ramanath Rai is able & experienced .six time MLA..!! MOST SENIOR .dedicated CONGRESS MAN for more than 40 years?

Are there better candidates than him?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 5,2020

New Delhi, Feb 5: Delhi High Court on Wednesday stated that that death warrant of all convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case should be executed together.

The Delhi prison rules do not state whether when the mercy petition of one convict is pending, the execution of the other convicts can take place and from the trial court to Supreme Court all convicts have been held by a common order and a common judgment, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed while passing the order.

High Court dismissed the Central government and Tihar Jail authorities plea challenging the Patiala House court's order, which stayed the execution of the four convicts in the case. It also observed that the convicts indulged in a heinous offence of a bone-chilling rape and murder of a girl and that criminal appeals by all convicts were dismissed by the courts.

Moreover, the court observed that the review petitions were filed after long wait and convicts are taking shelter of Article 21 which is available to them till their last breath.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had on Sunday kept the order reserved in the matter after special hearing of two days.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, alleged that the convicts were deliberately delaying the execution, adding that any delay in death sentence will have a dehumanising effect on the convicts.

A Delhi court last week stayed till further orders the execution of the four convicts -- Akshay Thakur, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, and Vinay Sharma -- which was earlier scheduled to take place on February 1.

The case pertains to the gang-rape and brutal murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012, by six people, including a juvenile, in Delhi. The woman had died at a Singapore hospital a few days later.

One of the five adults accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail during the trial of the case.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 11,2020

Bhadohi, Feb 11: With just two days left for the State Budget Session, a widow from Uttar Pradesh''s Bhadohi district has accused BJP MLA Ravindranath Tripathi and six others of sexual harassment over the years, the police said.

The incident is likely to cause considerable embarrassment to the ruling Yogi Adityanath government.

Bhadohi Superintendent of Police (SP) Ram Badan Singh said: "The woman, whose husband died in 2007, met the BJP MLA Ravindranath Tripathi''s nephew in 2014. She said that she was physically exploited by him for many years on the pretext of marriage."

The complainant also said that the nephew then got her lodged in a Bhadohi hotel for about a month during the 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, "where she was raped by the MLA and his other family members".

The case has been handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police for further investigations.

A case is yet to be registered.

The Uttar Pradesh Budget Session starts from Thursday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 8,2020

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.