Wreckage of missing Sukhoi-30 jet fighter found in Assam

May 26, 2017

Tezpur (Assam), May 26: The wreckage of the IAF Sukhoi fighter jet that went missing with two crew members on board was found today after three days of search operations. The Sukhoi jet had gone missing after taking off from the Tezpur Salonibari Air Force station in Assam at 10:30 AM on Tuesday on a routine training sortie.

sukhoi

Defence spokesperson, Tezpur 4 Corps, Lt Col Sombit Ghosh said that the wreckage of the missing SU-30 jet was found close to the last known position of the aircraft, which was 60 km north-west of Tezpur in Assam's Sonitpur district.

"As of now, the weather is bad and the place has dense foliage and members of the search operation are yet to reach the spot", he said.

The two-seater SU-30 MKI aircraft had gone missing after taking off from Tezpur airbase of Salonibari and lost radar and radio contact on May 23 at around 11.10 am.

Unconfirmed reports said the fighter plane had on board one squadron leader and a crew member but the IAF has not yet released any name or rank of the two members in the missing plane.

The country's front line aircraft SU-30 MKI was inducted in Tezpur air base during the tenure of former IAF Vice Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora on June 15, 2009.

At present Tezpur has a strength of two squadrons of SU-30 aircraft with one squadron comprising 12 to 16 aircraft.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 21,2025

hadith.jpg

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.