Legal Development in Nepal

Special Court gives fractured verdict on governor’s case

As You know that We are constantly following this case in our blog-This is the case relating to corruption charges against NRB Governor.

Nepalnews today reports here that a verdict has been awarded by Special Court but the verdict seems to be an incomplete one and the case will be further decided by Supreme Court in Nepal.

The protracted case against the governor of Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) Bijaya Nath Bhattarai witnessed a new twist on Sunday with three of the presiding judges of the Special Court (SC) giving three different verdicts on a case of corruption they were hearing in the court against him.

Consequently, the matter will now be heard in the apex court.

On Friday, the three-member Special Court bench had heard the case the whole day. They delivered the fractured verdict just after office hours in the evening.

The chief judge of the Special Court Bhoop Dhoj Adhikary concluded that the case did not have enough strength and suggested the accused be given a clean chit. A judge of the court, Komal Nath Sharma pointed at the need for further evidence to proceed with the case while the third judge, Cholendra SJB Rana saw enough evidence to sentence him as guilty.

The divided verdict was informed to the press by sub-registrar of the Special Court, Ritendra Thapa.

The case against governor Bhattarai, who remains suspended since last seven months after the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) slapped him with charges of financial irregularities, has attracted even the attention of donors with some of them publicly expressing disenchantment over the delay in settling of such a ‘sensitive case involving the governor of the central bank.’

The Special Court had been deferring delivering its verdict on the case on various grounds for the last many months.
Along with Bhattarai, a director of NRB Surendra Pradhan is also facing charges of irregularities worth nearly Rs 20 million in a financial sector reform programme.

Advertisements

Governor’s case decision deferred, yet again

In this Blog, We are constantly updating any development that takes place about this case-the corruption case against NRB Governor Bijayanath Bhattarai. You can see here for earlier developments. Nepalnews here reports the latest development on this case.

The Special Court, on Friday, repeated the scene seen seven times before.

It deferred the decision on the case against governor of Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) Bijaya Nath Bhattarai citing lack of time.

The case of suspended governor of the central bank has been deferred till Sunday (February 17).

Bhattarai and a director of Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) Surendra Pradhan are facing charges of irregularities worth nearly Rs 20 million in a financial sector reform programme.

The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had slapped the charges against the duo seven months ago.

The donors have expressed concern over the lingering and delay in the settlement of the case against the governor of the central bank.

Constituent Assembly Court Established

Nepalnews reports here that CA Court has been established. In our earlier post, we had told you that CA Court will be headed by Hon’ble justice Anup Raj Sharma of Supreme Court of Nepal.

The cabinet, on Sunday, has formed the Constitutional Court to hear disputes and complaints regarding the election.

The cabinet formed the court as per the recommendation by the Judicial Council.

Anup Raj Sharma, a Supreme Court judge will head the court. The court will include two members – Tapa Bahadur Magar and Ram Kumar Prasad Shah – both of whom are judges at the apex court.

Nahakul Subedi, co-registrar at the Council, has been appointed as registrar at the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court has been formed as per the special act passed by the parliament.

Another small news is here from Kantipur which reports that lawyers’ meet has adopted 13 points declaration in a national conference.

Some five hundred lawyers, who had gathered here for a three-day national conference that concluded on Sunday, unanimously decided to be active and committed to ensuring that the April 10 election to a Constituent Assembly (CA) is held in an impartial and fearless manner.

Similarly, the conference adopted a 13-point declaration, mandating Nepal Bar Association (NBA) to advocate constitutionalism, judicial independence, fundamental rights, pluralism, and periodic and competitive election after the CA election.

The conference also recommended that the demands of Madhes and Janajatis be resolved through talks, besides mandating NBA to play a role in mediating between the government and agitating groups.

The lawyers also expressed concern over hindrances to enjoyment of press freedom while urging the concerned parties not to interfere with independence of media.

The commitments expressed in the comprehensive peace accord should be respected by all concerned parties, the conference said in its declaration. Similarly, the conference suggested that all agreements between the government and agitating groups should be implemented completely.

Likewise, lawyers also decided to ask armed groups in the tarai to stop violence, terror and extortion.

Speaking at the concluding session of the conference, NBA President Bishwa Kant Mainali said that the April-10 election should not be postponed under the pretext of security. “Elections have been held even in countries worst hit by conflicts,” Mainali said.

Corruption Case of NRB Governor

In this post, in our earlier blog post, We had written that we will be updating you with the recent development on this case- case related to Governor Bijaya Nath Bhattarai as this case assumes a great significance among public. Here is a report published in Kantipur about the authenticity of letters presented by CIAA. If this is true, I think, the case is weak one and seems to tilt in favour of the accused.

KPMG official was never in Nepal for RB deal

KPMG, a Sri Lanka-based consulting firm dragged into the corruption case against Nepal Rastra Bank Governor, has finally replied to the Special Court, saying that it did not authorize A.N. Fernando to sign a consulting agreement with the central bank on February 6, 2006.Fernando is currently at the center of the controversy that has surrounded the case after the court raised doubts about the authenticity of the agreement bearing his signature. The court has not been able to finalize the case against Governor Bijaya Nath Bhattarai because of the questionable nature of the document.

“Mr. A. N. Fernando who was supposed to have signed said agreement with the Central Bank of Nepal on behalf of our firm has never been to Nepal and the signature appearing on page 3 of the agreement sent by you is not his signature,” KPMG said in a reply sent to the court on Monday.

KPMG was replying to a court letter sent on January 16. The court has asked the firm to clarify the authenticity of the document.

The question of the authenticity of the document arose after lawyers for Governor Bhattarai doubted the authenticity of a letter dated June 18, 2007. In the letter sent to Ranjan Krishna Aryal, investigation officer of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), KPMG said the signature appearing on the agreement was not Fernando’s.

Like the lawyers for the CIAA and those for the Governor, the judges of the court have also remained divided over the documents. Chairman of the court Bhoop Dhoj Adhikari has maintained that there was no need to verify the authenticity of the documents to pass a verdict in the case. However, two other members of the courts, Komal Nath Sharma and Cholendra SJB Rana, have been seeking to verify the authenticity of the documents. As the members are in a majority, their stance is prevailing.

The court is holding yet another hearing in the case on February 15.

Sharma to head CA court

Posted in Blogging News, Court, From ekantipur.com, Judges, Justices, Law of Courts, Legal News, Recent News, Tribunal by nepaleselaw on February 3, 2008

This is a bit old news that we failed to publish earlier. Kantipur reports here that Justice Anup Raj Sharma will head the Constituent Assembly Election Court. This court is being created under Interim Constitution of Nepal and the jurisdiction of this court will be to hear any matters in relation to disputes that may arise in Constituent Assembly Election. We will be publishing the power and jurisdiction of CA Court in our another post and also about Justice Sharma.

 

The Judicial Council (JC) on Sunday recommended the government to appoint Supreme Court (SC) Justice Anup Raj Sharma as the chairman of the Constituent Assembly Court.
Similarly, JC recommended the name of Supreme Court Justices Tap Bahadur Magar and Ram Kumar Prasad Sah as the members of the court, according to JC Spokesperson Nahakul Subedi.

A meeting of JC headed by Chief Justice Kedar Prasad Giri took the decision on Sunday after the government requested the JC to recommend the judges for the court. The government told the JC that it is going to announce the inception of the court soon.

The Interim Constitution has provisioned that there will be a separate court to take up cases and crimes relating to the election to the Constituent Assembly.

Similarly, the JC has recommended the government to appoint Subedi, joint secretary at JC, as the registrar of the court.

In the meantime, the JC meeting also decided to allow the Election Commission (EC) to deploy 95 district judges, including 20 additional district judges, as the chief election officers across the country, according to Subedi. Likewise, a meeting of the Judicial Service Commission decided to allow the EC to use 240 officials under the judicial service in the upcoming election.

Courts and Tribunals in Nepal

Posted in Court, Law of Courts, Tribunal by nepaleselaw on January 24, 2008

अन्य अदालत एवं न्यायाधिकरणहरु

नेपाल अधिराज्यको संविधान, २०४७ को धारा ८५ (२) अनुसार सर्वोच्च अदालत, पुनरावेदन अदालत र जिल्ला अदालत बाहेक कुनै खास किसिमका मुद्दाहरु हर्ेन कानूनद्धारा खास किसिमका अदालत वा न्यायाधिकरणको स्थापना गर्न सकिने व्यवस्था रहेको छ । उक्त संवैधानिक प्रावधान अनुरुप हाल नेपालमा निम्न अनुसारका अदालत र न्यायाधिकरणहरु स्थापना गरिएका छन् :-

विशेष अदालत

विशेष अदालत ऐन, २०५९ को दफा ३ अनुसार श्री ५ को सरकारले नेपाल राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी खास किसिमका मुद्दाको कारबाही र किनारा छिटो, छरितो तथा प्रभावकारी ढङ्गले गराउन न्याय परिषद्को सिफारिशमा आवश्यक संख्यामा तीन सदस्य भएको विशेष अदालतको गठन गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था छ । हाल नेपालमा १ जना अध्यक्ष र २ जना सदस्य सहितको एउटा विशेष अदालतको स्थापना गरिएको छ । विशेष अदालतलाई मिति २०५९।५।६ को राजपत्रमा प्रकाशित सूचना अनुसार भ्रष्टाचार र राज्यविरुद्धको अपराध संवन्धी मुद्दा हर्ेन पाउने गरी तोकिएको छ । साविक विशेष अदालतमा परी विचाराधीन रहेका मुद्दाहरु पनि यसै अदालतवाट हेरिने व्यवस्था छ । आ.व. २०६१।०६२ मा विशेष अदालतबाट हेरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७३ मा दिइएको छ

प्रशासकीय अदालत
निजामती सेवा ऐन, २०४९ को दफा ६९ (१) अनुसार निजामती सेवा ऐन अर्न्तर्गत विभागीय सजायं दिन पाउने अधिकारीले भविष्यमा सरकारी सेवाको निमित्त अयोग्य नठहरिने गरी वा अयोग्य ठहरिने गरी सेवावाट अवकाश दिएको विभागीय सजायंको आदेश उपर पुनरावेदन सुन्न पुनरावेदन अदालतका न्यायाधीश भैरहेको वा भइसकेको वा हुने योग्यता पुगेको व्यक्तिको अध्यक्षतामा तोकिए बमोजिम प्रशासकीय अदालत गठन हुने व्यवस्था छ । यसै कानूनी व्यवस्था अनुरुप काठमाण्डौंंमा मुकाम रहने गरी श्री ५ को सरकारले एउटा प्रशासकीय अदालतको स्थापना गरेको छ । यस आर्थिक वर्षा प्रशासकीय अदालतवाट हेरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७२ मा दिइएको छ ।

श्रम अदालत

श्रम ऐन, २०४८ को दफा ७२ अनुसार उक्त ऐनको प्रयोजनका लागि श्री ५ को सरकारले नेपाल राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी श्रम अदालत गठन गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था रहेको छ । त्यस्तो अदालतको मुकाम र अधिकारक्षेत्र सोही सूचनामा तोकिए वमोजिम हुने व्यवस्था छ । हाल नेपालमा मिति २०५२।९।१८ देखि एउटा श्रम अदालत गठन भै कार्यरत छ । श्रम ऐन अनुसार कामदार वा कर्मचारीलाई पारिश्रमिक, भत्ता, उपदान, संचयकोष वा क्षतिपर्ूर्तिको रकम भुक्तानी दिन तथा व्यवस्थापकलाई हर्जाना तिर्नुपर्ने गरी श्रम कार्यालयले दिएको आदेश उपर श्रम अदालतमा पुनरावेदन लाग्ने व्यवस्था छ । यसैगरी श्रम ऐन अर्न्तर्गतको कसूर गरे वापत कुनै खास सजाय गर्ने अधिकारी तोकिएकोमा बाहेक अरु मुद्दा श्रम अदालतमा दायर गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ । साथै श्रम ऐन अर्न्तर्गत व्यवस्थापक वा अन्य अधिकारी वा कार्यालयले गरेको सजाय र आदेश उपर श्रम अदालतमा पुनरावेदन लाग्ने व्यवस्था छ । यस आर्थिक वर्षा श्रम अदालतबाट हेरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७२ मा उल्लेख गरिएको छ ।

राजस्व न्यायाधिकरण

राजस्व न्यायाधिकरण ऐन, २०३१ को दफा ३ अनुसार राजस्व संवन्धी मुद्दाको कारबाही र किनारा गर्नको लागि श्री ५ को सरकारले राजस्व न्यायाधिकरणको गठन गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था छ । प्रत्येक न्यायाधिकरणको इलाका र मुकाम श्री ५ को सरकारले तोके बमोजिम हुने व्यवस्था छ । हाल नेपालमा विराटनगर, काठमाडौं, पोखरा र नेपालगञ्जमा गरी ४ वटा राजस्व न्यायाधिकरणहरु स्थापना गरिएका छन् । राजस्व न्यायाधिकरणमा कानून, राजस्व र लेखा गरी ३ विषयका ३ जना सदस्यहरु रहन्छन् र यी मध्ये कानून सदस्य राजस्व न्यायाधिकरणको अध्यक्ष हुने व्यवस्था छ । यस आर्थिक वर्षा राजस्व न्यायाधिकरणबाट सुनवाइ गरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७२ मा दिइएको छ ।

ऋण असुली न्यायाधिकरण

बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाको ऋण असुली ऐन, २०५८ को दफा ४ अनुसार बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाको ऋण असुली संबन्धी मुद्दाको शुरु कारबाही तथा किनारा गर्नका लागि श्री ५ को सरकारले नेपाल राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी आवश्यकता अनुसार ऋण असुली न्यायाधिकरणको स्थापना गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । न्यायाधिकरणमा कानून, बैकिङ्ग र लेखा गरी तीन सदस्यहरु रहने र कानून सदस्य न्यायाधिकरणको अध्यक्ष हुने व्यवस्था छ । सोही कानूनी व्यवस्था अनुसार श्री ५ को सरकारले मिति २०६०।३।२ को राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशित गरी बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाको ऋण असुली ऐन, २०५८ अर्न्तर्गतका नेपाल अधिराज्य भरका मुद्दाहरुको कारबाही र किनारा गर्ने गरी ३ सदस्यीय ऋण असुली न्यायाधिकरण गठन गरेको छ । यस आर्थिक वर्षा ऋण असुली न्यायाधीकरणबाट हेरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७५ मा दिइएको छ ।

ऋण असुली पुनरावेदन न्यायाधिकरण

ऋण असुली न्यायाधिकरणले गरेको निर्णयउपर पुनरावेदन सुन्ने प्रयोजनको लागि माथि उल्लेखित ऐनको दफा ८ अनुसार श्री ५ को सरकारले नेपाल राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी आवश्यकता अनुसार ऋण असुली पुनरावेदन न्यायाधिकरणको स्थापना गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था छ । सोही व्यवस्था अनुसार मिति २०६०।११।१२ को राजपत्रमा सूचना प्रकाशन गरी श्री ५ को सरकारले एउटा ऋण असुली पुनरावेदन न्यायाधिकरणको स्थापना गरेको छ । यस आर्थिक वर्षा ऋण असुली पुनरावेदन न्यायाधिकरणबाट हेरिएका मुद्दाहरुको विवरण परिशिष्ट -७५ मा दिइएको छ ।