Baskaran Kanakasabai
25 June 2010 at 01:58
Can anyone cite the example/s of case/s which involve violation of the following section of the constitution of India:
PART III
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
General
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
Definition.
Laws inconsistent
with or in
derogation of the
fundamental rights.
Anonymous
24 June 2010 at 10:37
Dear All
I want to know about the legality of the service bond signed by any employee with his employer.The employer is not providing any or any special training to the employee.Whether a service bond signed by an employee wherein it is required to serve a company for at least three years and in case he doesn,t want to continue with the company due to some personal reasonsthen what shouls he do?
Whether the company may file a suit for recovery of money which is rs.1lakh in case of breach of agreement.
Kindly advice and quote some importnat judgements.
Anonymous
21 June 2010 at 21:24
Ld counsels,
An interim stay was granted on the operation of the order of the Informaiton commission. Once the stay has expired can the public authority still deny the information.
What is the rationale behind giving a stay for a very limited period of say 2 weeks. The stay was ordered before the notice motion in teh writ case.
Please clarify the efect of interim stay on the ordered.
Thanks
tusharcosmic
20 June 2010 at 04:19
We go to the courts for justice and they give us next dates of hearing.
Can we ask the Govt. through RTI that under which constitutional law they go on evading justice to its people?
If yes please tell me the procedure in details.
For Legal Fighter-- There's need for speed, but legal system is not a factory
There are too many pending cases, particularly in the district of Mumbai. The number of magistrates is too few to cope with the workload.
The Bombay high court has recently ruled that “there is, therefore, the need to augment the judicial strength in the city of Mumbai… But the legal system is not a factory where production goes on continuously for 24 hours”.
A division bench of justice FI Rebello and justice Amjad Sayed said, “Even if additional posts of judges are sanctioned, other facilities and staff be recruited, there is acute shortage of buildings to house the additional courts and the staff.
“The high court, no doubt, does from time to time propose to the government the need for additional manpower, as also infrastructure. The budgetary provisions made by the state government for the last few years, do show an increase. But, it is not adequate to meet the floodgate of litigation…”
The judges made the observation while hearing a PIL filed by a Bandra-based engineer, Anil Gidwani. They went on to add, “The Maharashtra government has sanctioned evening courts. The high court has started the process of evening courts. Still there is need for more regular courts, as it may not be possible for the same judge to work Monday to Saturday, for long hours. This ultimately is bound to affect the quality of justice.
“Apart from that, if a judge is away from his family for longer hours, then it might affect family relationship. The legal system is not a factory where production goes on continuously for 24 hours.”
Gidwani had filed a PIL in 2009, saying that the judicial system needed to be reformed. After he wasted three years in litigation over an alleged illegal car parking, he moved the high court, asking it to intervene and check the administration of magistrate courts.
Gidwani had raised several grounds, to which the registry of the high court was directed to respond. The petitioner had queried whether a trial for an alleged parking violation should go on for 21 months. The registry replied that it was required that trials be completed at the earliest, having regard to the nature of petty offences, overall pendency of the old and other matters, etc.
The registry also stated that a policy decision has already beentaken regarding transfers of judicial officers every three years. However, there is an exception which allows principal district judge/principal judicial officer to assign/reassign cases to different judicial officers in the interest of justice.
The HC while disposing of the PIL directed Gidwani to file an application under the right to information Act to find out about the guidelines, rules and procedures laid down to deal with the process of lower judiciary.
Source : http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_there-s-need-for-speed-but-legal-system-is-not-a-factory_1388708
Anonymous
19 June 2010 at 23:44
Some one please cite me a ruling where a govt. servant was reinstated after suspension and was imposed only minor penalty after enquiries were conducted to impose major penalty, hence his suspension was treated unjustified.
There is an order to the effect from GOI that when after enquiries to impose major penalty ultimately ended with imposition of minor penalty the suspension should be treated wholly unjustified.
tusharcosmic
19 June 2010 at 18:57
If we pay taxes ,do not we become consumers of companies like --"Indian Govt." or "Pakistan Govt." etc.?
If after paying adequately to some company ,we become their consumers and if that comapany fails to deliver the promised goods or service, we can stand against them in Consumer Courts,Can we go to the consumer Courts against Governments like that of India as we pay taxes to them and we are entitled to get timely justice from it ? I mean ,are not we consumers of a company like "Indian Govt." who takes taxes from us to deliver us justice if ever needed, so can not we go to the "Consumer Courts" when the ordinary courts do not give justice but give only next date of hearing? Can we get a speedy justice this way?
princehashmi
18 June 2010 at 23:06
on what basis j & k public safty Act is against to constitution of india,can it be applicable to minors.
Anonymous
18 June 2010 at 21:56
Ld counsels,
The public prosecutor office of HC has challenged the information commissions order to give information to me.
The fact of the case is police have manipulated the complaint and the improved allegations in the complaint were not revealed to the court during anticipatory bail hearing. Also in a seperate proceedings information commussion has ordered for departmental enquiry to find on how the polcie gave false information to me. Polcie are not complying to this order.
Now in the writ case will HC apreciate the circumstantial eivdence which is the bail order and other documents supporting my claim Or will it once again order the police to enquire into the manipulation of records before passing the final orders in he writ case field by the PP denying the information to me.
PP's main contention is sec 126 of evidence act but it is not applicable in this case bcos there is an ilegal act committed by police with the knowledge of the office of PP.
So please clarify how the HC will view this case.
Daksh
18 June 2010 at 09:36
Dear All,
I have noted with great concern the pointed comments of presently presiding Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Mr.Justice S N Dhingra who time and again gets carried away and resorts to commenting on pros and cons whether it is against police or norms of the society. Previously during hearing arguments he challenged contesting submission of an Advocate with prompting him to get inflicted himself with the alleged same injuries and get himself videographed and asking the SHO to register his complaint subject to this conditionality his client will get the sought bail. And today his vent against the police find prominence in the Newspaper.
By this thread I am not discussing the merits of the case but I would like to bring the fact of habitual sensationalization by the press and lack of self monitoring by the Bench.
I would like to seek your valued inputs in this regard.
Thanking you in advance
Best Regards
Daksh
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Misc. Petition in Writ to include a party
Ld counsels,
In a writ case challenging the order of the infomration commission the public authority has not included the information commission as a respondent rather included only me (RTI applicant) as a party.
Now I want to include the IC as a part inthe proceedings. Under what provision of law I can make that petition. I was told that I need to file a Misc Petition (MP) in the same writ proceedings. Is there anything called impleading.
Please clarify.