India RTI News

लालू यादव को सजा सुनाने वाले जज शिवपाल सिंह को 64 की उम्र में हुआ प्यार, महिला वकील से रचाई शादी Judge Shivpal Singh Special CBI JUDGE : चारा घोटाला में आरजेडी अध्यक्ष लालू यादव को सजा सुनाने वाले जज शिवपाल सिंह ने 64 वर्ष की उम्र में शादी रचा ली है. जज शिवपाल सिंह ने 50 वर्षीय अपनी प्रेमिका nutan tiwari bjp leader cum advocate से शादी रचाई है. नूतन तिवारी पेशे से वकील हैं. दोनों के बीच गोड्डा कोर्ट में प्यार हुआ. फिर दोनों से शादी रचा ली. Gonda:. कहते हैं प्यार अंधा होता है. जब दो लोग प्यार में होते हैं तो पूरी दुनिया बेगानी सी लगने लगती है. कहा जाता है कि प्यार ना तो उम्र देखता है, ना ही जात. यही कारण है कि समाज की बंदिशों को दरकिनार कर प्यार के पंक्षी फैसले लेते हैं. हालांकि सबकी अलग- अलग प्रेम कहानी होती है. ऐसा ही एक प्रेम कहानी झारखंड के गोड्डा में सामने आया. गोड्डा कोर्ट के प्रथम जज शिवपाल सिंह अपने जीवन में कई अहम फैसला सुना चुके हैं. चारा घोटाला के मामले में लालू यादव को सजा सुनाने वाले शिवपाल सिंह ने 64 वर्ष की उम्र में शादी रचा ली है. जज शिवपाल सिंह ने 50 वर्ष की प्रेमिका नू

Criminal proceedings dismissed in default for appearance can be restored-no Bar of 362 CrPC Applicant :- Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj  Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Cbi/Acb Lucknow  Counsel for Applicant :- Nandit Srivastava,Kuldeep Srivastava  Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath  Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.  Crl. Misc. Application No.51760 of 2015 - Application for Restoration of the Petition and the Recall of the order dated 29.04.2015.  Heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI and perused the pleadings.  This application for recall of the order dated 29.04.2015 has been filed with the prayer to restore the Criminal Misc. Case No.1994 of 2011 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) (Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj vs. The State Of U.P Thru CBI/ACB Lucknow) at its original number and status.  Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 29.04.2015 the counsel for the petitioner all of sud

  Jiomart के order कम हुए, फ्री डिलीवरी कितने पर भी स्कीम बंद।  दुकानदार खुश हुए की ग्राहक घर से निकलेगा।  Tv में विज्ञापन की सब फ्री डिलीवरी होगी पर यहां 250लिमिट लगा दी Mumbai: Jiomart has closed free delivery for any order . Now for free delivery you have to buy minimum Rs 250 items. As per delivery boy this minimum value started since 21 Feb 23. Due to this number of orders are reduced upto 25percent. 

  Palghar : Civil Surgeon is registering 41 Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes without Fire NOC. As per section 3 of Maharahtra Fire Act it is mandatory for all comercial units. The structure Occupation ceritifcate record is also not available at civil surgeon office Palghar. The registration authority is not issuing 3 years license without mandatory compliance. It is offence under section 7 and 13 of prevention of corruption act. The lack of compliance and issuing registration is misconduct . As per Hon'ble Bombay High Court the Hospitals and nursing homes the license should not be issued without Fire NOC .  Dr Sanjay S Bodade is issuing such licenses without following rule of law. Recently the Relief Hospital got Licenses in 2021 at Palghar and the building is under construction and have no OC.  The matter has recently been considered by the Apex Court in   Baldev Singh Gandhi vs. State of Punjab & Ors ., AIR 2002 SC 1124 in the following terms : "9. 'Misconduct&#

  क्यों judicial officers को contempt से छूट मिलती है?  क्यों दवाब में है SC JUDGES contempt cases में? जनता में कोर्ट का विश्वास क्या कायम रहेगा? हमेशा contempt के निशाने पर जनता क्यों रहती? New Delhi: Many judicial officers and few Judges violate supreme court order deliberately and willfully. When people file contempt case against such judicial officers then Supreme court judges deny contempt action. Even contempt action is not taken against supreme court registrar who is disposing contempt petition against judges against SC order that registry cannot decide Maintainability of petition.  Mumbai petitioner MH patel , Ashok etc filed 5-6 contempt cases against judicial officers but Supreme court dismissed all and one dropped  with single line order.  Is equality before the law is only for rich people? Is contempt  depend on face value of petitioner? Is SC Judges are under pressure of judicial officers association? Is SC order is only for reading? Even a police constable don't resp

 शिकायत को दबा देना और आरोपी से पैसा वसूल  कर लेना , एक साल से शिकायत पर कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की , DLSA  कोर्ट के पत्र को अनदेखा किया।  Dewas: Case under section 7&13 of Prevention of corruption act 1988 filed against Dewas Inspector Mukesh ijjardar , Bank Note Press police station. He was ignoring SC Lalita Kumari guidelines and settled with accused. He gained bribe from accused to ignore his duty and responsibility. He ignored preliminary inquiry guidelines of Lalita Kumari and doing corruption under section 7 C and 13 of PC Act. BNP police station is hub of corruption.  There is 3-7 years jail under section 7 of PC act. IPC 166A, 420,120B , 409 ALSO included. As per many high court's orders he lost protection of 17A as he ignored duty and responsibility. His assets enquiry is also demanded from SP LOKAYUKTA UJJAIN . Inspector Mukesh Ijjardar was unconstitutional y saving CENTRAL MALWA ACADEMY SCHOOL management who is operation fake government recognise ICSE board. He also igno

  Andhra High Court Esi Corporation, Hyd. vs G. Venugopal And Anr. on 19 July, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2001 (6) ALD 422, 2002 (92) FLR 448, (2002) IIILLJ 352 AP Author: V Rao Bench: S Sinha, V Rao 19. Samaraditya Pal in his Book "Law relating to Public Service", noticed a contrary decision of a learned single Judge, of the Bombay High Court in  ABDULLA LATIFSHAH v. BOMBAY PORT TRUST , (1992) 1 LLJ 226 and at page 717 of the treatise, it was observed: In view of Sinha, J, of the Calcutta High Court discloses a pragmatic approach based on robust commonsense' and is to be preferred to the Bombay view. The Calcutta view also finds support in principle from a subsequent three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court ( B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , where the possession of disproportionate assets, not satisfactorily accounted for, was held TO AMOUNT TO A MISCONDUCT AMENABLE TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT AN ENUMERATED MISCONDUCT UNDER THE conduct Rules. And