Our Chief Justices in American Courts

In an action filed by a Japanese company in the New York State Supreme Court against ICICI Bank, former Chief Justice B N Kirpal, as the plaintiff’s expert, projected a gloomy picture that if the action were pursued in India it would take 15-20 years for disposal. On the other hand, former Chief Justice Ahmadi, as the defendant’s expert, over optimistically opined that recent amendments to the CPC ‘‘would ensure early disposal of concerned suits, say within a year’’. Judge Iva Gammerman held, quite erroneously, that the amendments effected changes only regarding filing of written submissions and list of witnesses and did not address delay in the Indian legal system. So Kirpal prevailed over Ahmadi and the Japanese company succeeded.

In its action against State Bank of India commenced in the same court by the same Japanese company, reliance was again placed by it on Chief Justice Kirpal’s affidavit. The State Bank relied on the affidavits of former Chief Justice Chandrachud and Avasthy, a former judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. They both disagreed with Justice Kirpal’s view based on congestion in the Delhi High Court. Judge Richard B Lowe III, in his judgment dated February 10, 2004, observed that ‘‘the conflicting evidence concerning the availability of an alternative forum has not convinced this court that the action should remain here, in a forum having no connection whatsoever with the action’’ and dismissed the Japanese company’s action. On this occasion Chandrachud scored over Kirpal.

This trend of giving evidence was started about eight years ago by former Chief Justice Bhagwati who entered the witness box in a District Court in the United States and made disparaging statements about the tardiness of our country’s legal system to support his client’s claim.

One wonders if former Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court or other apex Courts tender evidence in Courts of other countries denigrating or praising the legal system of their countries depending on their briefs.

FDR and the Bomb

Franklin Roosevelt has been my favourite world leader, especially for his inspiring Four Freedoms speech. I was astounded when I recently learnt of an incident which is indicative of his involvement in the production of the atom bomb in the USA and the subsequent bombing of Japan. In January 1945, Roosevelt arranged to bring his son, James, back from service in the South Pacific so he could be present at his fourth inauguration as President.

James was doubtful because American troops had still a lot of fighting to face and the invasion of Japan was bound to be bloody. Roosevelt told his son that there would be no invasion of Japan because ‘‘we will have something that will end our war with Japan before any invasion takes place.’’ Roosevelt declined to disclose further details but assured James that it is ‘‘something we certainly will use before you or any of our sons die in an invasion of Japan’’ and said ‘‘so you come back to me, son’’.

Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. Thereafter, during the Truman administration, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were subjected to atomic bomb attacks on August 6 and August 9, 1945. Soon thereafter Japan unconditionally surrendered. Roosevelt’s son, James, undoubtedly came back to his father. But thousands of Japanese were killed and the ongoing lethal effects of radiation mutilated millions whose children could not come back to their fathers.

Garam Cha

There are many who cannot commence their day without a hot cup of tea. In a recent decision the Supreme Court observed that tea is a beverage and is consumed hot or cold for its flavour, taste and its quality as a stimulant. It however held that tea neither nourishes the body nor sustains or promotes its growth and has no nutritional value and concluded that tea is not ‘‘food’’.

Seasoned tea-drinkers will strongly disagree and fortify themselves with another garam cha.