Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from September, 2021

State Of Maharashtra Supreme court Email ID , Copy Of Petition To Email For Maharashtra Representation

  For State of Maharashtra representation (Police Or any) the Petitioners can email the copy of SLP at govtadvdelhi@gmail . com email address  .(Maharashtra Advocate ) 022 22028120 (Mumbai Office) 011 – 23385212 Mr Gade  ( For State Of Maharashtra office Delhi Supreme Court Cases LIST OF MATTERS IN WHICH LINK SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ORAL MENTIONING ORAL MENTIONING FOR 03.09.2021 Sr. No Case No. DETAIL’s OF AOR COURT-2 COURT-5 COURT-6 COURT-7 COURT-8 HMJ IB – 1807 COURT-9 HMJ VS – 1100 HMJ VS – 1807 COURT-10 COURT-12 COURT-13 LIST OF MATTERS TO BE MENTIONED ORALLY BEFORE HON’BLE COURT ON 03.09.21 THROUGH VC MODE Date / Time Coram/ Category if any 2.1 (II-C) Verified 31.8.21 / 1.04 PM IA No. 99547/21 in Crl. A. 205-207/18 (Mohd. Razhur Rehman v/s State of Karnataka) – Judgement Reserved in matter on 4.2.21. For Parole in order to attend his mother who is 88 yrs old & terminally ill & palliative care. Main Matter Crl. A. 201-202/18. HMJ UUL – 1439 Mr. Shadan Farasa...

Law Student Enrolled As Advocate Inspite Of FIR By Order Of High Court

  Division Bench of this Court in K.Divya Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicerry and another (W.P.(MD)No.12774 of 2018 dated 26.06.2018), came to the rescue of a law student whose enrollment as an Advocate was held up by the Bar Council for the reason that a case was registered against the petitioner therein for the offences under Section 153(A) and 505 (1)(b) IPC r/w Section 66 (F) of Information Technology Act, 2000. Though the offence under Section 60(F) of Information Technology Act is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to imprisonment for life, the Division Bench of this Court by considering the facts of that case and the nature of charges levelled, held that such offence by no stretch of imagination can be said to be attracted in the facts of the particular case and directed the Respondents to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate. It is also necessary to refer to the decision of this Court, in S.Manikandan Vs. Tamil Nadu Bar Council and others [W.P.No. 2309 o...

Pakistan से डॉलर Afganistan जा रहे है

  डॉलर की स्मगलिंग की एक वजह अफ़ग़ानिस्तान में डॉलर की कमी है और इसका मुख्य कारण अमेरिका द्वारा नई तालिबान सरकार के डॉलर खातों को फ़्रीज करना है. उन्होंने बताया कि तालिबान सरकार से पहले, गठबंधन सेना के लिए हर सप्ताह 50 करोड़ डॉलर आते थे, जो ख़र्च की मद में अदा किए जाते थे. इतनी बड़ी संख्या में डॉलर आने के कारण ये डॉलर पाकिस्तान भी आ जाते थे. उन्होंने कहा कि तालिबान के सत्ता में आने से पहले 50 लाख से एक करोड़ डॉलर तक अफ़ग़ानिस्तान से पाकिस्तान आते थे, लेकिन अब स्थिति बदल गई है और इसकी तुलना में अब पाकिस्तान से रोजाना 10 लाख से 20 लाख डॉलर अफ़ग़ानिस्तान स्मगल हो रहे हैं.

जन सूचना अधिकारी पर नियम से काम नही करने पर FIR हो: हाई कोर्ट FIR CAN BE FILED AGAINST PIO FOR RTI NEGLIGENCE

  मुंबई: कई जन सूचना अधिकारी नियम से काम नही करते है और applicant को घुमाते रहत है। समय के अनुसार जवाब नही देते और चुप मार के बैठ जाते है। बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने ऐसे अधिकारी पर पुलिस FIR IPC 166A के तहत करने को कहा।  लोक सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा कोई जवाब नहीं देना धारा-7(2) आरटीआई एक्ट का उल्लंघन है। लोक सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा आरटीआई एक्ट की धारा-7(8) का उल्लंघन पर भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 166ए और 167 के तहत एफ आई आर होगी। 2. लोक सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा झूठी जानकारी देना जिसका प्रमाण आवेदक के पास मौजूद है उस स्थिति में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 166ए, 167, 420, 468 और 471 के तहत एफआईआर दर्ज होगी। 3. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय नहीं किये जाने की स्थिति में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 166ए, 188 के तहत एफ आई आर दर्ज कराई जा सकती है। 4. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के समक्ष लोक सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा सुनवाई के बाद सम्यक सूचना के भी गैरहाजिर रहने की स्थिति में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 175, 176, 188, और 420 के तहत एफ आई आर दर्ज करवाई जा सकती है। 5. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय करने के बाद भी ...

CJM RAJNANDGAON का सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश मानने से इंकार, Ms Monika Jaiswal ने lalita Kumari आदेश की अवमानना की!

                WILFUL AND DELIBRATE CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT ORDER! FAILED TO PUT LAW INTO MOTION AS PER SUPREME COURT LALITA KUMARI ORDER . CJM Ms MONIKA JAISWAL NOT OBEYING HON'BLE SUPREME COURT SETTLED LAW WHICH ARE BINDING FOR HER . NOT CALLING POLICE AND MINING REPORT AS PER JUDICIAL PROCEDURE CASE OF JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY AND MISCONDUCT! CJM DENIED TO RECALL CRIMINAL ORDER AS PER SUPREME COURT CITATION . COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT UNDER KK DHAWAN (SUPRA) ORDER . Chattisgarh Rajnandgaon CJM Monika Jaiswal ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के settled law मानने से इंकार किया  .  CJM Ms मोनिका जायसवाल की कोर्ट में illegal mining & transportation का case दायर किया गया था  .  यह केस mahavir group Rajnandgaon के  Mahavir Suncity NX  , Kanchan Bagh, Rajnandgaon में चोरी के minor मिनरल का था  . माइनिंग अधिकारी और पुलिस ने जाँच से इंकार किया तो crpc 156 में याचिका दायर की गयी  . CJM ने बिना किसी आधार के याचिका ख़...

Article 21 Rights And Supreme Court Judgement

  Article 21 has been interpreted to include spectrum of entitlements which include following: (1) The right to go abroad — AIR 1967 SC 1836. (2) The right against solitary confinement — AIR 1978 SC 1675. (3) The right of prisoners against bar fetters — AIR 1978 SC 1514. (4) The right to legal aid — AIR 1978 SC 1548. (5) The right to speedy trial — AIR 1979 SC 1369. (6) The right against handcuffing — AIR 1980 SC 1535. (7) The right against custodial violence — AIR 1983 SC 378. (8) The right against public hanging — AIR 1986 SC 467. (9) Right to doctor— s assistance at Government hospitals — AIR 1989 SC 2039. (10) Right to shelter — AIR 1990 SC 630. (11) Right to a healthy environment — 1995 AIR SCW 306. (12) Right to compensation for unlawful arrest — AIR 1983 SC 1086. (13) Right to freedom from torture — AIR 1978 SC 1675. (14) Right to reputation — AIR 2014 SC 1106. (15) Right to earn a livelihood — AIR 1986 SC 180. (Paras 106, 107, 149, 150)

Session Court Has No Power To Ban Media Reporting

  _*⭐HC:Sessions Court has no power to Ban Media Reporting.*_ _- In respect of Criminal proceedings of Sohrabuddin Encounter Killing case - Impugned order passed by Session. Judge, held without jurisdiction - No provision in CrPC confers inherent jurisdiction on subordinate criminal Courts to pass postponement orders - Such powers vest only in Courts of record High Courts and Supreme Court._ _Case:_ _*Sunil Baghel Vs. State of Maharashtra*_ _Citation:_ _*2018 ALL MR (CRI) 3558.*_ *************************

FIR Against PIO For Not Providing RTI Information at Jaipur Rajasthan

  RAJASTHAN POLICE REGISTERED FIR AGAINST PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR DOING CONSPIRACY AND NOT PROVISING INFORMATION UNDER IPC 166,166A,420,120B,167,217,188 BY JAIPUR RURAL POLICE KOTPATLI POLICE STATION ON 09 SEPT 2021 Download 

A Petition Filed For Malafide Intentions Must Be Deal As Per Law:SC

  गलत इरादे सै दायर याचिका को भी नियम से निपटना है। किसी के इरादे गलत होना याचिका खारिज करने का आधार नहीं हो सकता ...... Supreme Court in catena of judgments and more particularly in the case of M. Narayandas Vs. State Of Karnataka 2004 Cr. L. J. 822 (SC)  where it is ruled that The High Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation or render a finding on question of malafides. Even if the Appellant had made the complaint on account of personal vendetta that by itself was not a ground to discard the complaint which had to be tested and weighed after the evidence was collectedas under; “Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. ….. ***For this reason the submission cannot be accepted. If as claimed there is no substance in the complaint the investigation w...

Punishment To Homeopathy Doctor For Practising In Allopathy Is Medical Negligence

  _*⭐SC:Medical negligence - Medical Practitioner held liable*_ _Doctor registered is medical practitioner, entitled to practice in Homoeopathy only - Prescribing allopathic medicine - Death of patient - Doctor is guilty of negligence per se - Liable to pay damages._ _Case:_ _*Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel*_ _Citation:_ _*AIR 1996 SC 2111.*_ *************************** *************************** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/611474/