Some humour may be good for us

42 views

Skip to first unread message

Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam

unread,

6:01 AM (17 hours ago) 6:01 AM

to bankpensioner

Heated discussion is going in this forum on the Singla Case. Some argue based on their legal acumen. Some argue based on simple logic but not on legal merit. Some abuse the persons who do not toe their line of arguement.

But let us understantd that in all legal matters there are two different divergent views.

See the classic story below: (For a change friends may argue who is right)

There was a new junior lawyer recently completed his legal education. He wanted to be trained under a Senior.

Senior told him that the Junior need not pay any fees. But once the training is over, when he appears for his first case, if he wins, he has to pay the Senior Rs.1000. Junior agreed.

Training period was over. But the Junior was not appearing for any case.

Now Senior filed a case against the Junior for recovery of Rs.1000. He told the Junior, “Look, now I have filed a case for recovery of Rs.1000. If I win, you have to pay me the amount. If I loose the case, then it means that you are winning in your first case, and in that case also you have to pay me Rs.1000.

After all, the Junior is the person who has been trained by the Senior. He told his Senior “Look, if you loose the case, then as the case is for recovery of Rs.1000, I need not pay. If you win the case, then I will be the looser in my first case. In that situation, I need not pay you as I could have lost my first case.