Live
- Mannara Chopra’s refreshing photoshoot brings summer vibes
- Vishal’s thriller ‘Rathnam’ clears censor; all set to hit theatres
- Rashmika wraps up key schedule of Dhanush’s ‘Kubera’
- Cycling vs walking: Which is better for weight loss?
- ‘The Delhi Files’ to hit floors this year
- Former Pakistan women’s captain Bismah Maroof calls time on her playing career
- CM Kejriwal’s arrest not based on belated contradictory or coerced statements: ED’s affidavit in SC
- PM Modi urges people to not get upset with 'insulting language' used against him by Congress
- North Korea touts ties with Russia on Kim-Putin summit anniversary
- CM Yadav-led MP Govt will run with full speed after LS polls: PM Modi
Nandigram poll case: Judge Kausik Chanda recuses, imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on Mamata Banerjee
Judge Kausik Chanda recuses, imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on Mamata Banerjee (Pic Credit: livelaw.in)
Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court Wednesday recused from hearing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's petition challenging the election of BJP's Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram, while imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh for the manner in which the recusal was sought
Kolkata: Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court Wednesday recused from hearing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's petition challenging the election of BJP's Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram, while imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh for the manner in which the recusal was sought.
Releasing the election petition of Banerjee, Justice Chanda said that he was doing so in order to thwart at the outset attempts by trouble-mongers to keep the controversy alive.
"A deliberate and conscious attempt was made to influence my decision before the recusal application was placed before me for judicial consideration on June 24," Justice Chanda observed pointing at social media posts by some TMC leaders.
"The calculated psychological offensives and vilification adopted to seek recusal need to be firmly repulsed, and a cost of Rupees five lakh is imposed upon the petitioner," he said.
In the 13-page order, the judge said that the imbroglio stemmed from the inception of the litigation due to the assignment of the case before his bench.
