Thursday,
June 28, 2001, Chandigarh, India
|
|
PU extends last date to July
5 Chandigarh, June 27 A decision in this regard was taken by a senior-level committee which met here today. The proposal has been forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for final approval. The university had to reconsider the admission plan for first year of undergraduate classes because the Punjab School Education Board has failed to announce the result of class XII (Arts) examination till date. The first list would be put on the boards on July 7 on which date objections could be filed. The final merit list would be displayed on July 9, sources said here today. In the commerce category, interviews for the Chandigarh centre would be conducted on July 11, 12 and 13; for Ludhiana on 14, 15 and 16; for Moga on July 18 and for Hoshiarpur on July 17, sources said. Admissions for the BBA and BCA, Part I, for the Chandigarh and Ludhiana centres would be carried out on July 11, 12 and 13, sources added. |
Another member of teachers’
union picked up Chandigarh, June 27 20 police personnel reached the spot, the members of the union raised slogans against the Punjab Government. Leaders of the union said they would continue their agitation till their demands were accepted. |
Aptitude test on July 4 Chandigarh, June 27 Interviews will be conducted on the same day. The last date for submission of forms in the B.P.Ed and MA-I (Physical Education) is June 28. Physical efficiency tests will be carried out at the PU grounds on July 10 early in the morning. The interview is scheduled for July 11. |
MCA results declared Chandigarh, June 27 Copies of the result gazettes are available at the new enquiry office and also at telephone numbers 534818 and 784869, a press note said. |
Bhatnagar case Chandigarh, June 27 General Budhwar, who had commanded the Leh-based 3 Infantry Division during the Kargil operations, had been summoned as a court witness after the prosecution had closed its case, and the accused had refused to present his defence in protest against the court’s attitude towards him. After the prosecution counsel presented his closing address, contending that in view of the statements of the witnesses and evidence brought out during the course of the trial, the charges levelled against the accused stand proved, the defence submitted that it wished to recall some of the witnesses. While the judge advocate, Maj Vipin Chakraborty remarked that this was no stage to recall witnesses, the defence counsel, Capt (retd) Rajneesh Bansal, contended that provisions of Army Rule 143 entitled the accused to recall any witness before giving his closing address. The defence contended that after the examination of Maj-Gen Budhwar, which had been closed abruptly without giving just and due opportunity to the accused to address questions to the witness, no opportunity was given to the accused to call or recall any witness. The defence added that in the interest of justice and to disprove charges as well as to bring on record the
Mala fide in bringing the accused to trial, three witnesses, Brig Devinder Singh, Capt S S Bisht and Sub Rajinder Singh be recalled for cross-examination. The defence also submitted that the accused, who was present at the alleged incident, himself be examined under oath through the court. The defence’s contention was that General Budhwar had attributed statements to Brig Devinder Singh, which had not been brought out in the latter’s deposition before the court. Going to great lengths to explain the legality and purpose of this submission, the defence counsel said that it was now apparent why the court was protecting the witness. He said that the court might protect its witness if it so desired, but should not deny justice to the accused in the process. Later, the defence counsel also stated that even if the accused was acquitted by the GCM, the issue of taking suitable action against senior officers who were responsible for the Kargil fiasco, but had shifted the blame onto their juniors, would still be pursued in the High Court.
|
Estate Office issues notice to
lawyers Chandigarh, June 27 It is learnt that the lawyers have been directed to appear in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Central), Mr Prithi Chand, on July 4. The Estate Office had issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. A number of lawyers were declared unauthorised occupants of the public premises (chambers under the Act). The allotment of seats in a number of chambers had been cancelled by the order of the UT Deputy Commissioner. As per the original allotment, 108 chambers were allotted in 1986, but with the passage of time the number of legal practitioners enrolled with the District Bar Association increased manifold while several original allottees left the practice or passed away. Expansion of the lawyers’ complex was not possible as the foundation of the building could not take any further load. Therefore the only wayout to accommodate lawyers having makeshift chambers on the premises was the reallotment of vacant chambers. Lawyers of the District Court had moved a petition for reallotment of vacant chambers in 1997. Acting on the petition, the High Court had directed the Administration to look into the lawyers’ chamber problem. In an affidavit before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Deputy Commissioner suggested that the draw of lots should be held for allotting chambers to “eligible candidates who had applied for allotment”. He added that the chambers, after the draw of lots, should be “filled by taking the consent of the principal or the co-allottees”. He also stated that “principal allottee or co-allottees had no right to assign his slot or any vacant slot in the chamber to anybody, including his children, at his own level as per the terms of allotment”. Regarding encroachments on the passage, he elaborated that “several lawyers had put up tables in the corridors of the building, obstructing the movement of people, causing annoyance, besides being hazard from the safety point of view”. The president of the District Bar Association, Mr H.S Hundal, confirmed that the notice had been issued to the lawyers. He added that the Administration had allotted the chambers to those lawyers who had submitted Rs 1,000 along with the application invited by the Estate Office. He added that chambers had been allotted by the draw of lots. |
Rape victim records statement Kharar, June 27 The victim had lodged a complaint with the Sohana police that a medical camp was organised in Jheurheri village and she was raped by the doctor in that camp.
|
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |