What is Caveat & why we did not file

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Thank every one of those who understood and supported me.

I would like to explain and clarify regarding non-filing of Caveat and Contempt Petition by members of our Organisation.

To begin with we would like to bring filing of Caveat by us before Karnataka High Court and we are also happy to inform that we secured most favourable verdict, from Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.  Post Judgement, we had two options.  They are :

a. Filing of Caveat, before Hon'ble Supreme Court and/or

b. Filing of Contempt petition.

After discussing various Senior Advocates and taking into account pros and cons, it was decided not to explore both options.  Sum and substance of information obtained are as under :

Before discussing further, I would like to explain what is 'Caveat'.

Caveat is a 'request' to Court to hear us before passing any orders, whether favourable or otherwise.  This is because, Court itself would not be aware as to Arguments and Grounds of Appellants.  If Caveat is filed, even to dismiss a Special Leave Petition, Supreme Court should send notices to those who have filed 'Caveat'.  Those who have filed 'Caveat' are bound to engage Advocates.  It would be great, if SLP is dismissed.  But, granting of Leave, after hearing Advocates of those who have filed Caveat, may also adversely impact final outcome, as the Appellants have won the round one.

How Supreme Court treats SLPs ?  

We understand from one of my friends who had spoken to a former Registrar of Supreme Court that normally, Supreme Court does not dismiss SLPs, when Respondents are in large numbers and Appellants happen to be 'State' (i.e Government or PSUs).  This is because, dismissal of SLPs itself without hearing all the parties at length might result in dispensing Public Money. To illustrate, I would provide recent example. Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by State Bank of Mysore in Mrs.Saroja Shivakumar's case, but Leave was granted (admitted) SLPs involving same subject matter, filed by State Bank of Mysore, involving more than 20 appellants.

 

Normally, when Leave Granted in other SLPs arising out of same Judgment, Leave is also granted in subsequent SLPs arising out of same Judgment.  Unfortunately, Mrs.Geetha Bhat, one of the Petitioner in Bank of Baroda 50% case had filed contempt petition against Bank of Baroda.  Subsequently, Bank of Baroda filed SLP ang got the petition tagged to BoB Vs G Palani. Consequently, every other SLP arising out of KHC Judgment is being tagged to Mrs.Geetha Bhat’s case. 

 

As we were watching all these developments, we are convinced against filing Caveat.  Filing Caveat would not have served any purpose other than making Poor Pensioners, poorer.      

 

Our aim is to conserve our resources for engaging Best Advocates to represent our members in Supreme Court, when our CAs are taken up for hearing.

Those who retired under Exit Policy and denied another option had filed caveat before KHC.  Unfortunately, Writ Appeal is admitted yesterday.

 

Filing Contempt petition would have resulted in valid ground for the Bank to secure Leave and Stay early.  Because of filing of Contempt Petition, Leave was granted in Allahabad Bank 5 years’ SLPs, which in turn affected Vijaya Bank’s SLP.  Both these cases are tagged together.

 

 

OUR ORGANISATION HAS NOT EVEN COLLECTED ANY MONEY FROM THE RESPONDENTS (Original Petitioners) FOR FIGHTING AT DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (with the exception of payment towards payment of fees to Advocates for having secured favourable Judgment in Writ Petitions and for filing Caveat).  Our Organisation has also not collected any money for fighting in Supreme Court.  But, our Organisation has only obtained Debit Authorisation to Debit expenses incurred after/out of credit of arrears/benefit.  NO INDIVIDUAL IS AUTHORISED TO COLLECT ANY MONEY AND NO INDIVIDUAL HAS COLLECTED MONEY.

 

Please feel free to raise any query regarding these issues, without any ulterior motives.

 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[perumal maruthu]

Thank you Sri CNP for explaining in detail

"what is caveat?" and its importance of filing or otherwise!

I hope general members must repose confidence in their Advocates and leave the nitty-gritty of LAW to them to adopt suitable strategy to the best of their ability and depending on the situation and various connected factors.

M.Perumal

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=und.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli]

Thank you Sri Prasada gaaru for your pains taking effort to clarify the position.  In my opinion, the unfortunate incident evoked some unpleasant feelings to you as also to us, In a way, it has enhanced your stature and image among the fraternity. We have lot of confidence in you and your abilities.  Thanks and regards to you.

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=und.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
D S MURTI

[venkat rao]

Dear Sri Prasad,                       I am glad to read your clarificatory mail and thank you for the same.Now the  pensioners forum members will have a clear picture about the SBM case.You could have done the same thing earlier instead  of going against Sri Harinarayana and other comrades of Mysore city.They wanted clarification.Other members of the forum unnecessarrily criticised the group.That also I wellcome as there should be healthy debate and deliberations among ourselves.As you are aware and others also, that they are part of your team who have obliged to the union(pensioners commune)'s call and paid /signed the debit authorisation slip/letter as written by you in your mail.As you are the leader (general secretary of SBM pensioners's commune) they have approached you in the matter.They have no where told that the money has been MISUSED.Instead they have come forward to contribute for legal expenses of supreme court in case of need.It is a case of misunderstang.I hope now the matter rests.Wishing you and other SBM comrades who are fighting for 5 years(both SVRS And EXIT OPTEES) all the best in Supreme court and come sucessfully and enjoy the fruits of 5 years benefit. Venkatrao.H SBM Mysore

--- On Fri, 31/5/13, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> Subject: bankpensioner What is Caveat & why we did not file

--

[Pankaj Vithlani]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail explaining Caveat and Contempt Petition.

Generally Contempt Petition are filed by the applicants when petitioner seat on Judgment
i.e. do not act on the Court Order. Contempt Petition brings pressure on petition to honor
the Court Order / Award.

However, in our case, Generally Bank files appeal in Higher Court to save themselves from
Contempt Petition.

Regards

-- Pankaj Vithlani

On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:59:47 +0530 wrote

is admitted yesterday.Filing Contempt petition would have resulted in valid

ground for the Bank to secure Leave and Stay early. Because of filing of Contempt Petition, Leave
was granted in Allahabad Bank 5 years’ SLPs, which in turn affected Vijaya Bank’s
SLP. Both these cases are tagged

together.OUR ORGANISATION HAS NOT EVEN COLLECTED ANY MONEY

FROM THE RESPONDENTS (Original Petitioners) FOR FIGHTING AT DIVISION BENCH OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (with the exception of payment towards payment of fees to
Advocates for having secured favourable Judgment in Writ Petitions and for
filing Caveat). Our Organisation has
also not collected any money for fighting in Supreme Court. But, our Organisation has only obtained Debit
Authorisation to Debit expenses incurred after/out of credit of
arrears/benefit. NO INDIVIDUAL IS

AUTHORISED TO COLLECT ANY MONEY AND NO INDIVIDUAL HAS COLLECTED MONEY.Please feel free to raise any query regarding these

issues, without any ulterior motives.

































































Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

--
>
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
>
---
>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=und.
>
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

>

>

Pankaj Vithlani
Mob. 9825673520

Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here

[RANGARAJAN M R]

I HOPE MEMBERS WILL NOW CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE TREADING ON THE RIGHT PATH. 
ONE SHOULD NOT JUMP INTO CONCLUSION WITH HALF BAKED KNOWLEDGE.  GOING BY THE
CAREFUL HANDLING OF THE LEGAL MATTERS LED BY PRASAD THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
BETTER OPTIONS THAN TO GET LEGAL REMEDIES WITH UTMOST CARE AND CIRCUMSPECTION.
WE ARE NOT COMPETENT TO DICTATE TERMS TO THE SR. ADVOCATES WITHOUT ANY
EXPERIENCE AND SPOIL THE FUTURE OF PENSIONERS.  IF AT ALL SOME RAY OF HOPE HAS
BEEN CREATED  IT IS ONLY DUE TO THE RELENTLESS LEGAL BATTLE OF COUPLE OF
FRIENDS LIKE PRASAD WHICH WOKE UP ALL OF US.  LET US HAVE PATIENCE AND
SUPPORT THE LEADER TO REAP THE WELL DESERVED BENEFIT WHEN WE ARE ALMOST
AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. FOR THE BETTERMENT OF  WELFARE OF PENSIONERS

M.R.RANGARAJAN
MYSORE

--

[anand krishnan]

More on "Caveat"

 

Caveat is a two line application addressed to the Registrar, filed in any High Court or Supreme Court  u/s 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code, mentioning the details of any matter which is instituted or expected to be instituted in a suit/appeal/proceeding before the said Court where the applicant/caveator request that no order with regard to the said matter may be passed without giving notice to the applicant/caveator. The advantage of such application/ caveat is to avoid any ex-parte order in any matter which the other party may try to get at the time of filling the matter in any of the courts. The matter can be got dismissed even at the admission stage itself .

 

Not much a cost is involved in filling of caveat apart from the cost for sending the notice,  copies of the petition/application and/or papers/documents in support of this petition/ application of the matter against which this caveat was lodged to the caveator other than the  the professional fee of the advocate in filling this caveat.

 

Anandakrishnan