pavan
04 September 2009 at 18:46
Kindly let me know the total number of amendments till 2009 to our Indian constitution.
Pramod Pawar
04 September 2009 at 09:00
Meanwhile mr.Jaswant and Yashwant made a statement about dicision .Is it not the breach of trust or contract or contrary to sworn in while to be minister.I am willing to file PIL at Aurangabad Highcourt,maharashtra.Weather petition will be maintainable?
Rajneesh Madhok
02 September 2009 at 18:08
RTI APPLICATION REPLIED BY PUTTING BACK DATE BY PIO ON FILING APPEAL TO FAA
I filed an RTI application on 13th July 2009, which had been delivered to the CPIO on 15.07.09. Any how we add five days in the date of delivery that will come out to be 18th July 2009. On getting no reply from the PIO, the First Appeal had been made to FAA on 19.08.09.
On 31.08.09 I received the reply by an official of the concerned department not mentioning his designation. He signed the reply as For Sr. Divl. Comml Manager, *****Name of Town. The concerned official is not PIO or FAA according to the website.
The PIO played the game by sending reply dated 18.08.09 which I received on 31.08.09. The reply made by ordinary pos. No seal on the envelope has been put by postal department. Neither at the place the envelope had been posted nor the place of delivery of document. The Postal stamps affixed at the back of the envelope has no seal.
Now the question is that.
1. Whether my First appeal that has been made on 19th Aug will be considered or not. Though I have documentary evidence of posting.
2. Whether I will have to file second appeal once again as I am not satisfied with the reply sent by the concerned official.
3. Should I make complaint to CIC.
4. How can I prove that the information that I received actually on 31st Aug 2009.
5. The PIO has sent reply on OIGS envelope. Whether we should make the enquiry of posting of that letter with evidence.
6. Our postal department is also funny. It does not put stamp.
7. Now the point is the proof of delivery.
8. What will be the intention of the CPIO to send reply after due date and putting back date on the replied letter.
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara
Sumir
02 September 2009 at 14:24
Can a PIL be taken back after filing in a court? I have some information obtained through net that it can't be taken back?
debasis MANDAL
30 August 2009 at 00:04
I want to know under which law a gazetted officer or any group-A officer can attested a document i.e. mark sheet and certificate of examination etc.?
monika
29 August 2009 at 18:17
please guide that if a person takes retirement from his services under VRS scheme , and his application has been accepted also ,is there any stipulated time period within which department is supposed to clear his dues if it is more than one and a half year what remedy does he have and how should he move about it,if there is any citation or case law related to this plz guide
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
28 August 2009 at 08:48
Experts,
is there any case law upon 29 cr.p.c.?
what about 29 ,357 cr.p.c.
Arun Purohit
27 August 2009 at 17:10
please let me know as soon as possible the facts & judgement of case "Krishna Sagar Mills V/s Union Of India, AIR 1959 SC 316"which is the clarification for the "Explaining the "Reasonableness for the Restriction to the Fundamental right to Freedom as per Article19(2)nto 19(6)
.
lalit rishi
26 August 2009 at 16:24
An Industrial Tribunal was established under the industrial tribunals Act. it provided powers only to create it. but the same authority also abolished it.
my contention was that the tribunal is discharging a constitutional function, hence it cant be abolished by the authority who has not been expressly provided with
the powers. in other words the act does not provide powers to abolish it. hence i say it has been wrngly abolished without there being powers to abolish it. Am I right. are there any
judgements to support this contention that power to abolish tribunal is not deemed , it has to be specifically provided. kindly help me.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
moot prolem
i want your help regarding this moot problem.......
Intra –Moot Court Problem
Mr.Sudhakaran is the son of Mr.Raghunandan, Managing Director of Biocon Pharmaceutical Industries which is having the turn over of 200 crores per annum and having its registered office at Cochin. Mr.Sudhakaran met with an accident on 18th August, 2009 at 10 am while travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Swift on the Trivendrum and Cochin Highway. He sustained severe intestinal damage and contusion of the Liver as well as ancillary injuries including two broken ribs, dislocation of the lower jaw, two broken fingers and a broken wrist. He was taken to the Apollo Hospital in Trivendrum at around 12 noon where the doctors advised Mr.Raghunandan to take his son to Mayot Hospital in Chennai which is the only multi speciality hospital available in India to deal with the special cases like Mr.Sudhakaran’s. They also advised Mr.Raghunandan that his son has to undergo operation within twenty four hours else, his son will suffer paralysis and may succum.
In pursuance of that, Mr.Raghunandan called Mayot Hospital, Chennai and the operation was fixed at 2 pm on 19th August, 2009. The doctors at Apollo hospital, Trivendrum informed Mr.Raghunandan that his son has to travel with artificial life support system. Mr.Raghunandan immediately contacted Mr.Avinash, the agent of Kingfisher Airlines at Trivendrum for booking the flight tickets by explaining the condition of his son.
Mr.Avinash booked the tickets for Mr.Raghunandan in Kingfisher Airlines from Trivendrum to Chennai via Bangalore transit ticket which scheduled to take off at 4pm on 18th August, 2009 and also informed him about the arrangements he made with the Kingfisher Airlines for carrying on the life saving machine till Bangalore and mentioned that the further arrangements in the connecting flight shall be made by the Kingfisher Airliness personnel.
The Kingfisher Airlines is an Airline operating with in the airspace of the republic of India having its registered office at Commerce House, Fort, Mumbai. Mr.Raghunandan reached the airport along with his son who is with life supporting equipment by 3pm on 18th August, 2009. At 3.30pm only he saw that the ticket contains a clause 2.2 stating that “the bearer of this ticket certifies that he/she is in a fit condition to fly and is not suffering from any health problem which may be a hindrance to his travel”. Mr.Raghunandan along with his son boarded the flight at 4pm on 18th August, 2009. Exactly at 5.30pm it reached the Bangalore airport where Mr.Raghunandan was asked to wait for the Jet Airlines flight which is scheduled to take off at 7pm on 18th August, 2009. Around 6.45pm the Jet Airlines officials informed Mr.Raghunandan that as per Cl.8 of the memorandum of understanding between the Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Airlines, “all the passengers flying from Trivendrum to Chennai via Bangalore will be regularly boarded in the Jet Airlines and all the norms and conditions of the Jet Airlines will be applicable to those passengers”. Further the officials informed that as per terms and conditions in Cl.8 “the bearer of this certifies that he/she is in a fit condition to fly and is not suffering from any health problem which may be a hindrance to his travel”. So, they can’t board his son into the Jet Airlines flight.
Mr.Raghunandan pleaded with the Jet Airlines authorities to take note of the seriousness of his son and requested them to allow their travel. He also pleaded for the life of his son by mentioning that they have already travelled from Trivendrum to Bangalore by the Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Airlines is having a contractual obligation to carry them to Chennai and also briefed about that arrangements made at Trivendrum Airport by Mr.Avinash and the promise that he made they can travel along with life supporting machine in the Jet Airlines also. Inspite of all the plea by Mr.Raghunandan, the officials refused to board hi