Geek Upd8 - Online Law Reporter

Latest Post

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 213 Of 2013. D/d. 26.10.2016.

State of Punjab & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jagjit Singh & Ors. - Respondents

With
Civil Appeal No. 10356 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil).31676 Cc No. 15616 of 2011), Civil Appeal No.10357 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) 31677 Cc No. 16434 of 2011), Civil Appeal No.10358 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 37162 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 10360 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 37164 of 2012), Civil Appeal No.10361 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 37165 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 214 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 217 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 221 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 224 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 225 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 233 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 234 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 235 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 236 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 249 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 257 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 966 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 2299 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 2300 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 2301 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 7150 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8248 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8979 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 10362 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 9464 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 10363 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 11966 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 10364 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 17707 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 10365 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 24410 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 871 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 10366 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4340 of 2014), Civil Appeal No. 10527 of 2014.
For the Appellants :- Rakesh Khanna, AAG, Jagjit Singh Chhabra & for Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, for Mr. Kuldip Singh, for M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co., for Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Brijesh Kr. Tamber, (for A.V. Balan), Prem Prakash, Mukesh K. Verma, Ramesh Goyal, (for Ashwani Bhardwaj), Vijendra Kasana, Chand Qureshi (for Dr. Kailash Chand), Shish Pal Laler, S.D. Sharma, Sonit Sinhmar (for Balbir Singh Gupta), Himanshu Gupta, Dinesh Verma, for S.L. Aneja, for Subhasish Bhowmick, Vikas Mahajan, Vishal Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, for B.Y. Kulkarni, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, for R.C. Kaushik, Ms. Manju Sharma, Anil Kumar Tandale, Ashok Mathur, Varun Punia, A.S. Pundir, Ms. Vanita Mehta, Balraj Dewan, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocates.
Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. - Delay in filing and refiling Special Leave Petition (Civil).... CC no. 15616 of 2011, and Special Leave Petition (Civil).... CC no. 16434 of 2011 is condoned. Leave is granted in all special leave petitions.
2. A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (2009(4) S.C.T. 88 : LPA no. 337 of 2003, decided on 7.1.2009), set aside, in an intra-court appeal

Bar Council of India

As you would be aware that Law Commission have recommended amendments in Advocate Act and BCI had called a Nationwide strike on 31 March, 2017. As the matter was not sought out by the strike on that day, BCI had prepared a plan to meet the demands kept by them.

According to the image on 16th April, 2017, BCI had planned to conduct Awareness campaign at State by State Bar Councils in association with Office Bearers of Bar Associations

Along with that Country wide, Bar Associations will start a Signature Campaign demanding the rejection of Recommendations of the Law Commission.

On 21 April, 2017 During the Lunch time Lawyers all over the country will assemble outside the Court's premises and burn copies of Recommendations of Law Commission & Advocates' (Amendment) Bill, thereafter they will hand over a Memorandum to the union Govt. through D.M's/Governor.

Thereafter on 22 April, 2017 The Lawyers will abstain from Court's work after Lunch time.

And on 22 April, 2017 Protest March in Delhi from Patiala House to Rajghat in court dress by Lawyers, in case of Recommendations are not still rejected.

And finally at last, Jail Bharo campaign, if demands of rejection of recommendations are not accepted even then.

Demands of BCI

  1. Reject recommendations of Law Commision totally.
  2. Resignation of Chairman of Law Commission.
  3. Appointment of Senior/Renowned Advocate as Chairman of Law Commission
  4. Bar on assignment to retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges
  5. Provisions of Social Security for Lawyers and families i.e Insurance, medi-claim, pension on retirement, family pension on death of Lawyers, Stipend to young Lawyers

Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments

DELHI HIGH COURT (DB)

Before:- S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ.
Mat. App.(F.C.) 90 of 2014, CM No. 7107 of 2008, CM No. 7109 of 2008, CM No. 2575 of 2009, CM No. 4199 of 2009, CM No. 8808 of 2014 & CM No. 9419 of 2014. D/d. 21.9.2016.

Manju Panwar - Appellant
Versus
V.P.S. Panwar - Respondent

For the Appellant in person. :- Dr. Manmohan Sharma, along with Anurag Pratap and Rishi Raj, Advocates.
For the CRPF :- S.K. Sharma, along with Rahul Sharma and Prayas Aneja, Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.

JUDGMENT
Deepa Sharma, J. - In the present appeal the respondent- wife challenges an order dated 13.12.2001 of the Delhi District Court, which dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of cruelty. The parties to the dispute were married on 24.12.1975 at Meerut and they were blessed with two children in the year 1976 and 1983.

Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad Judgments

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Before :- D.H. Waghela, J.
Misc. Criminal Application No. 8214 of 2002. D/d. 29.4.2003

Ritaben Ashokbhai Shah - Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Kanubhai Sheth and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- F.B. Brahmbhatt, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- M.J. Buddhbhatti, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- N.D. Gohil, A.P.P.

JUDGMENT
D.H. Waghela, J. - This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed with a prayer to quash the complaint filed by the original-complainant, who is the respondent No. 1 herein. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 875 of 2001

Legal Opinion from Mesothelioma Lawyer

You’ve worked hard all your life. Many of you have even served in the military. This is why it hurts even more when life hands you a raw deal all as a result of the material you touched and air you breathed during all those years working for someone else. As painful as being diagnosed with Mesothelioma {Symptoms : Dry Cough or Wheezing, Shortness of Breath (dyspnea), Respiratory Complications. or Difficulty Breathing, Pain in the Chest or Abdomen, Fever, Pleural Effusions, Anemia, Muscle Weakness}, it is comforting to know that there is a law firm in operation that is willing to fight to restore your dignity and get you the compensation that is long overdue to you.

The Usefulness of a Lawyer

30 Billion USD for Mesothelioma victims in lawsuits
While David and Goliath makes for a wonderful story, however it is often difficult to go after major corporations on your own in Lawsuit. There is simply too much involved with the legal landscape to make it worth your while. A lawyer, however, is able to go to bat on your behalf and even help you enter into a class action lawsuit if available. Many people do not discover until years after the fact that they were exposed to harmful agents. This lack of disclosure means that you have a good reason to sue. This is not to get back at the company or the country that you served, but to receive compensation for the pain and suffering that you and your loved ones have endured.

When To Call

If you believe that you are sick today as a result of years working in an area where you exposed to asbestos or other items that pose a direct risk to your health, you should contact a Mesothelioma attorney for exploring your legal options.


Advocates would go on a Nationwide strike on 31 March, 2017 against the Law Commission. The call for this strike is from Bar Council of India. As per source, it is said that as per report of Law Commission, the advocates have been devoid of the right to go for strike, further it is said that in case anything goes wrong in a matter at the instance of advocate, than the advocate would have to compensate it. Thus, advocates through out India will go for a pen down strike on 31 March.

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget