The New Delhi District Consumer Forum has directed Standard Chartered Bank to pay Rs30,000 as damages to a credit card-holder for harassment caused to him due to an ‘illegal’ demand of over Rs1 lakh. The Forum held that the Bank’s demand of money to remove his name from the defaulter’s list with the Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd, despite settling the previous amount, is illegal. The complainant was wrongly debited for Rs1.08 lakh. In January 2009, the matter was settled with the Bank against payment of Rs30,000 by him. However, when he found that his name continued to be in the CIBIL’s defaulters’ list, he complained to the redressal forum.
The government has proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Non-compliance...
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction for former telecom minister A Raja’s prosecution. It said sanction should be granted within a time frame and the competent authority shall take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the Vineet Narain case of 1996
Setting aside the Delhi High Court judgement on sanction of prosecution in the second generation (2G) case, the Supreme Court today held that filing of a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right of a citizen and the competent authority should take a decision on giving the sanction within a time frame.
See the SC judgement below...
If the sanction is not given within four months then it is deemed to have been granted, the two judge bench of the apex court held in a case filed by Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the prime minister for sanction to prosecute the then telecom minister A Raja.
The bench comprising justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly held that Mr Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction for Mr Raja’s prosecution.
It said sanction should be granted within a time frame and the competent authority shall take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the Vineet Narain case of 1996.
Justice Ganguly, who wrote a separate judgement, agreed with justice Singhvi and said sanction would be deemed to be granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a period of four months.
The bench said that right to file a complaint against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right.
The bench said it was not accepting certain submissions made by the Attorney General in defending the stand of Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
The court said it was not declaring as ultra vires the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The apex court had reserved its judgement on 24 November 2010 on the petition filed by Mr Swamy alleging that there was delay in taking action on his plea seeking sanction to prosecute Mr Raja.
Mr Swamy, who had made the prime minister a party in the case, had initially sought a direction to the prime minister to take decision on sanction to prosecute Mr Raja but later on he sought framing of guidelines on the issue as his plea became infructuous with the resignation of the DMK leader as telecom minister on 14 November 2010.
He had alleged that there was an “inordinate delay” on part of the prime minister in taking a decision on his plea for grant of sanction to prosecute Mr Raja in the scam and his plea was neither allowed not rejected for over 16 months.
The PMO had, however, refuted all the allegations and filed an affidavit before the apex court maintaining that the request for sanction for prosecution of Mr Raja was considered by the prime minister and that he was advised that evidence collected by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was necessary before taking a decision.
The government said as the CBI probe was going on it was necessary to wait for its completion before taking any decision on granting sanction.
Mr Swamy had approached the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court judgement that had refused to pass any direction to the prime minister for taking decision on sanction.