Skip to main content

They must be told what they are in effect doing or saying...


Gross negligence and corrupt act of ministers and commissioners often draw flak, strictures, severe criticism from higher courts and equally some time comes from highest constitutional office of prime minister and home minister. Higher Courts and these higher Constitutional functionaries but must be told- What in effect they are saying, or in effect what they are doing.

So in effect these higher Courts and these Constitutional people give FRIENDLY WARNINGS for Serious lapses and definite guilt.

In the latest of these series, Shri Chidambaram, the Home Minister, on occasion of 1st annivarsary of 26/11 attack on mumbai, the senior and learned most, severely criticised mumbai police for they “misplaced bullet proof jackets and important files pertaining to purchase of these bullet proof jackets”, those bullet proof jackets which didnt worked and caused loss of our three most brilliant upright Police Officers. Those three Police Officers are Hemant Karkare, Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte. They must be told what they are in effect saying.

This term FRIENDLY WARNING is coined by LORD DENNING, one of the most celebrated Judge of House of Lords, England of 1950/60/70.

Also, recently, Bombay High Court Judge J N Patel is found (false) lamenting to say- Wear these bullet proof jackets to work, Mr cm. News Report- 11.12.2009- bottom of page 1.

Judges- may please refrain from passing remarks because you claim to be less humans and more infallible and because these remarks tend to make cheap and trivial the gross anomaly you are dealing with.

Please dont waste time in passing comments and strictures against passionate negligent state men.

Please pass orders that help in avoidance of repetition of issue they you are dealing with.

Judges- Please remember again - you claim to be less humans and more infallibles. therefore you shouldn’t be doing what every men is doing.

--
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan

Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

Law Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/


Thank you.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Recall Jurisdiction of the Courts

What is Recall of Orders of the Court ? But first….what is expected from the Orders of the Court – a)       While giving due consideration to the submissions and evidences on record of the rival parties, to record a reasoned finding with respect to disputed question of fact or of law; b)       Employing cogent reasons about the conclusion reached in the order / judgment. c)       Passing of orders in accordance with law. d)      Principles of natural justice are reasonably observed in the judicial proceeding. And when the Orders suffers from any of the vices, it is challenged by way of Review, Appeal or in Revision, alleging the impugned Order, being infected with either of the grounds, i.e. – a)       That there is Error apparent on the face of the Record; b)       That there is Perversity in the impugned Order; c)...
8 comments
Read more

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai Capital Value Property Tax Judgment: A Rocket Science by Social Scientists; A Brief Analysis;

The subject of taxation is a “Rocket Science”. The constitution of Nine Judges Bench in the Mafatlal Industries Case, Reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536, running into more than 500 pages; the extremely contested Vodafone litigation; and the present Judgment of Bombay High Court running into 310 Pages, at least furnishes some justification to this statement of Rocket Science. There are umpteen Judgments, some of which are relied herein also (Para 147), that whilst dealing with challenge to Taxation laws, greater latitude is shown by Constitutional Courts, only for the reason that Taxation / Economic Legislation, by their very nature, are very complex. And hold on, the Regime of Property Tax based on Capital Value of the Property, was brought in force, on the recommendations of Tata Institute of “Social Sciences”. (Para 33 of the Judgment) Did these Social Scientist, nevertheless very respectable, would appreciate an Inch of what was discussed in 310 Pages of Judgment, even assuming t...
4 comments
Read more