LCI is losing focus

Dear Mr.N.Ramakrishanan,

I do concur with your view point as lately I too was keenly observing this downtrend.  For this reason I have the following suggestion for arresting this problem here and now.

1.       Please for Gods sake throw in the dust been the scheme of points for once and all.

2.       There should be only three categories of members one Strictly for Advocates (making enrolment number mandatory) second for Students and interns and Third for General Public.

3.       The Third Category should and must not be allowed to participate in legal queries and should be allowed to opine and write subjective articles etc.

4.      This Forum should not and must not be allowed to propogate any political, demeaning, cheap, vulgar, personality assasination and self boasting stuff.

5.      We should be forming various communities like in each city in the hour of distress namely medical and other emergencies (accidents, blood requirement, counselling etc.)  there should be some local conduits who can be act as volunteers (information providers to members).

6.       Keeping in view the long term objectives in mind we should encourage formation of panel who can research and come out with reasons and suggestions which can be helpful at the time of decision making (grooming of future legal fraternity etc.)

7.        Last but not least we as a family should govern ourselves to avoid displeasure/discomfort to others.

Once again thanks and kudos for raking in such thought provoking thread.

Best Regards

Daksh

Dear Mr.Daksh,

Thank U for responding positively and suggesting some effective remedial measures. I request all active members to post their responses to this thread so that we can evolve an effective mechanism to stream line LCI.

I am aware that every person is entitled to his own opinion. However, we cannot adopt this general attitude while giving our opinions on Legal Queries. If one member has a different opinion to the one gaiven by another member, I request the differeing member to give reasons and substantiate through law or facts as to why he differs from the other. If a member has given the correct opinion, we can cocur with him (as a number of friends do) and if some one is mistaken, we can try to correct him by substantiating our point of view with materials. By doing so the member who made the mistake will also be benefitted. 

This will also lead way to healthy discussions and would also enrich fellow members. Instead, we are in the habit of posting our own views to each query and in the process there is string of conflicting views and opinions and the Querist is left totally confused as to the remedy available to him.

Thanks

N.Ramakrishnan, ADV  

I too concur with these suggestions of Mr. Daksh. Members should be divided into two broad categories as "Professionals” and "Non-Professionals”.

Also I am in favour of listing of Advocates region wise, so that we can pick up or select lawyers of desired locations.

What I know is that;

This site of LCI is to promote fratornity in Indian citizens and not to make difference based on class, colour, religion, caste, region, language, gender etc. and for that all main spirit of our democratic constitution is being promoted here.  (This is not Bar Room where the common man have to pay first and stand outside)

For my belief; I salute to LCI Admin. for this approach. 

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/lawyers/lawyers_home.htm

fees only rs 1200/ per quary.

LCI is very good website, there is no confusion here. There is seperate discussion forum for all to interact and seperate "Experts" section to get expert advice. Those who want to ask legal questions, there is the "Experts" section there. Are Mr Ramakrishnan and Daksh contending that "Experts" section has been infiltrated by non experts?

Plus there is problem that some arrogant persons give abrasive comments no other member comes to stop them.

I am in agreement with Respected Shri N. Ramakrishnan. This is indeed fact if Administrator Sir appreciates carefully this.

The best immediate solution is that the members must discourage contributors who are spoiling the health of this site.

Dear Mr. Ram Samudrea & Arup,

Nobody spoke about payment for answering queries. If you read through my posts carefully, you will find three vital points made by me.

1. That all advocates responding to queris should substantiate their point of view/opinions through legal principles and should refrain from just giving their opinion without verifying the legal position so as to avoid conflicting and erroneous views.

2. Some querists who raise repeated queries on frivolous topics and on imaginary circumstances should not be entertained.

3. The discussion should add value to bth the Querist as well as other members and should not be used by elements to propogate their distorted views or for lawyer bashing.

Thanks

N.Ramakrishnan, ADV

Better it should be a lawyers club in true sense.

Non lawyers should not be allowed to answer.

They can question only.

But I found that, though they claim themselves as advocate, but their answers are very poor – I can’t say whether willingly or unwilling – but answers does not seems that , it is coming from a really practicing lawyer.

On the contrary some answers from general public are satisfactory and up to the mark.

..........on every other matter.

where you got this information?

can you post some wrong infromation given by me?

hellow mr r g tigrania, i am waiting fo your reply.

Mr R G Tigrania

Perhaps you need the following information in regard to GPA, please let me know if it is helpfull to you.

Janki Vashdeo v. Indu Sind Bank – 2005 (2) SCC 217 the Apex Court held that even though a general power – of – attorney can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party for the purpose of giving evidence in respect of matters over which the party alone has personal knowledge. The conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner overlooking the above vital aspects of the matter cannot be sustained.

2005(2) SCC 217 – This judgment will be available in the following books.  For books may take help of any local lawyer or bar library.

2004(6) Suppl. SCR 681  

2004(10) JT 264

2004(10) SCALE 244

2005 AIR 439