Phantom Blogs

Legal Blogs

Principles of Natural Justice

No one can be judge of his own cause,
Right to be heard
No one can pass unreasoned judgement
No one can pass cryptic order.

No one is perfect

Even Judges Do mistakes,
Silly Mistake
Knowingly,
Unknowingly.

A Dismay Story of Indian Advocates

Advocates are made not born,

An argument at Silly-Point


between a judge and a lawyer
a hon'ble Orissa high Court
on the point of making the Registrar of NHRC a party to the suit

A video
presentation

During Law Study
At Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Farhan Coaching
In English

Discrimination between
a poor and a rich CCL

Odisha Vs Maharastra
Rich Father & Sugar Daddy Vs Single Mother
Nayagarh Pari Murder Vs Pune Poscha Car Case

No More Safety In The Place of Safety

ALL are sleeping and the future of the country is behind the bar.

SAVE THE CHIDREN IN CONFLICT WITH LAW

State Considered them the second-class citizen of this country

College Teacher
Vs
College Student

The IPS Arun Bothra implicated two innocent in the false cases.

Coming Soon......

AIBE
Vs
CPET

Two Examinations of a kind,
One for wrongful gain
another for
public interest.

AIBE - A mockery of the Indian legal education system whereas the CPET is a real one.

Sarah Sunny Vs Lalit Kumar & Ors.

Nepotism Still Prevails in the Court
All Lawyers survive
All Soldiers die



Judiciary's
Blue Eyed Boys

Bar Council of India
State Bar Councils
Laywers
are the blue eyed boys of the Indian Judiciary
and they will never gets punished by the Indian Judiciary even if the large scale misconducts, absue of power and corruption prevailing in these offices.


A Noble Cause
by Our Senior Advocate
Advocate T.K.Dwibedi

Planting a Tree a small step by a man but a giant leap by the Mankind as we have only one HOME to live in the Mother EARTH.


Example set by the young lawyer Advocate Abinash Giri of Bhadrak

by marriage a girl before Marriage officer of Bhadrak in a single ceremony and without taking a single paisa a Dowry.


Orissa High Court Acting like
an Agent of
Rulling Government and
Political Party

In MLA Pradeep Panigrahi Case.
Lady IIC of PATANA Police Station Case
and Numerious more.
The Poeple of Odisha lost all hope and faith in it and engaging antisocial to redress their grievances.

The provision of Article 50 of the Constitution of India Violated for the wrongful gain

Most Mis-used judgement of the Supreme Court by the PIOs

CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.6464 of 2011.

False Implication of Dr. Dilbag Singh Thakur of SCB Medical Colleve and Hospital in the crime No.201 of 2024 by the Mangalabag Police Statation

Thus violated the Supreme Court guidelines
Lalita Kumari Vs State of UO, WP Crl. 68 of 2008
Commisisonerate Police Vs Devender Anand & Anr , Crl. Appeal No.834 of 2017
Direction of the CID-CB vide Notification No. 31787 Dt. 31-08-2019.

Odisha High Court Mediation Centre is running for mere formality.

As it is in the hands of incompetent, impotent and powerless people.

Cheating and Forgery Committed by DCP Prateek Singh of Bhubaneswar-UPD

the DCP has sublet his police duty to the section officer who is signing as the DCP of Bhubaneswar-UPD

Misconducts, Abuse of power, abuse of process of law and corruption prevailing in the Tenkasi District Judiciary of Tamil Nadu

No monitoring by the High Court as per the provision of section 529 of BNSS-2023 and it is done under a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, intentionally, dishonestly, fraudulently and for the wrongful gain.

Supreme Court guidelines of the protection of Medical Professionals-2024

This is a Suo motu cognizance taken by the apex court due to the unfortunate incident of alleged Rape and Murder of the lady doctor in the RG Kar hospital of Kolkata.

Legal Misadventure by lawyer is strictly prohibited

but here in the State of Odisha legal misadventure is the source of the collection of illegal money as more than 20000 petitions are filed before the hon'ble Orissa High Court for the registration of FIR even if the same has been prohibited as per the rule of law, direction of the competent authority(s) and as per the guidelines of the apex court given in the cases of Priyanka Srivastava & Sakir Bahu.

pendancy-in-courts

Pendancy in courtsReasons & solutions Petition are coming in the court for vague and frivolous cause The AOR is not taking their responsibility as has become the petition writers. High courts are admitting petition to pass order for the registration of FIR as 20000+ orders have been passed after the guidelines of Privanka Srivastava Vs State of Up., 2015 by the Hon’ble Orissa High court itself.

View Post »

AAB-2025

Advocates ( Amendment ) Bill-2025 The Law Department of the Central Government is inviting objection and Suggestion to the proposed Bill from the Citizen of This country complying to the provision of the section 23 of the General Clauses Act 1897. The voices of protest already started to begin against the proposed Bill. Proposal for the framing of the rule towards the grant of the provisional enrollment within a week from the date of application as per the direction of the BCI Dt. 12-04-2013 and the guidelines of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court issued in the WP. No.34475 of 2024. Another proposal to define the different classes of legal fraternities such as : Law Student Law Scholar Lawyer graduate or Lawyer Practicing Lawyer Non-Practicing Laywer and allowing the Law Scholar to act as a legal practitioner.   View the Bill View the changes and elaborated definition of the “Legal Practitioner” View Proposal for the grant of provisional enrollment within a week. View Proposal to define different classes of legal fraternities

View Post »

badagada-1

Odisha Police Department,Officers Of the Commissionerate Police-Bhubaneswar-Cuttack are running of the Paisa Vashooli Racket. IT is shameful for the senior police officers of the Odisha Police Department that the new BJP government of Odisha did not trusted them for the post of the DGP of Odisha Police thus one IPS was imported from the central cadre for the post who was one of the most honest Shri Yogesh Bahadur Khurania who eradicated antisocials from the twin city when he was the Commissioner of Police few years back. 01. That, No previous DGP ever confessed to the running of the Paisa Vashooli & Extortion Racket by the officers of the Odisha Police Departments but this new DGP did by issuing the official letter No.110 of Dt. 24-09-2024 directing all the SPs/DCPs, Range IGP to take urgent cognizance into the matter. But nothing has been done by anyone to curve the same and to comply with the direction of the PCO No.110 of 2024 as the IIC, ACP, DCP and other officers of the Badagada Police Station of Bhubaneswar-UPD are running a parallel office for the collection of illegal money from all possible quarters and the latest victims of this P-gang are one Smt. Hemlata Giri and her friend Shir Bismit Das who had were illegally abducted from their house, detained in the police station for the whole day and night arbitrarily, and released from the Police Station after the police extorted Rs.1.00 lakh ( Rs. One Lakh Only ) and booked in a false case No. 64 of 2025 under section 318(4) even if the complaint report disclosed only a civil dispute thus the crime has been registered violating the rule of law crafted in section 173 of BNSS-2023, the direction of the CID-CB issued vide the Notification No. 31797 Dt. 31-08-2019 which was issued in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court guidelines issued in the case of Commissionerate Police Vs Devender Anand & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2017. thus the acts and omissions of the police department are not only serious misconducts, gross irregularities, abuse of power, illegal acts, and omission but engagement in rampant corruption. 02. That, victim lady Smt. Hemlata Giri, Bismit Das, and their lawyers ran from pillar to pole to contact with the ACP, DCP, and Addl. CP and Commissioner of police but their CUG Mobile Numbers were found to be switched off and the victims and the bloggers have reason to believe that the same has been done under a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, intentionally, dishonetly, fraudulently and for wrongful gain and the deceitful means has caused injuries.   03. That, Nothing has been done to comply with the “ZERO TOLERANCE TO CORRUPTION” policy of the State Government of Odisha as all are engaged in the running of the Paisa Vashooli Racket under the very supervision and protection of the Home Department which is run by the incompetent, impotent and powerless public servants. 04. That, The senior officers like AC, DCP, Addl. CP, Commissioner, and District Magistrates have made themselves Unreachable and Unapproachable for the domiciles of the state and citizens of this country and are engaged in other private activities for wrongful gain, relinquishing their duty towards the citizens even if they are receiving monthly salaries regularly from the taxpayers’ money, which is charged to the consolidated fund of the state. 05. That, It is a universal fact that Odisha Police Departments are running for mere formalities and failed miserably to achieve the object of the statute under which the same is constituted as it is in the hands of incompetent, impotent and powerless people who are engaged in serious misconduct, abuse of power, illegal acts and omission and rampant corruption. all the different offices like police stations, ACP offices, DCP offices, Commissionerate, Odisha Police HQ., and Collectorates are running in isolation of each other as the ACP is not inspecting the police station as per the provision of the PCO No. 280-86, The DCP is not inspecting the police station as per the provision Odisha PMR No. 37(a), the District Magistrates are not inspecting the police station as per the Odisha PMR No. 21 and the DGP/IGP are not inspecting these officer as per the Odisha PMr No.35 and 36. 06. that, It is a universal fact that almost all the police stations have become torture and extortion centers and failed miserably to achieve the object of the statute under which it has been constituted and running for mere formalities as it is in the hands of incompetent impotent and powerless people was are engaged in the operating a PAISAV VASHOOLI RACKET ( extortion racket ). 07. That, It is a universal fact that the police department of the state is running on the principles of profitability and return on investment. Police department first plant the tree of corruption, eat its fruits for years and when water starts flowing over the nose, then they cut the tree for promotion and award. 08. That, The posts and police stations are bought and sold by the legislators and senior police officers of the state violating the apex court’s guidelines given in the case between Prakash Singh Vs UOI, 2006 and whoever buys it considering his foremost duty to get it back with profit and interest from all the quarters and for the same, the police officers are doing all types of illegal acts from extortion to murder. 09. That, ” A Police Officer and a policeman who loses his head in handling a situation is not fit to be a member of a police force”, ( Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Former Home Minister, Govt. of India. ). 10. That, “Yours ( Police ) is the responsibility to maintain the prestige of the government and protect the honor of the citizen. It is not enough if you only detect crime and bring the offender to book. You must try to win the affection of the people…..” https://youtu.be/vp8cVqXdkLo?si=SekyV3WKYs_vqAag View the false FIR View complaint to District Magistrate, Khurda View complaint to District

View Post »

Remedies agaisnt PIO and FAA

Remedies available against PIO & FAA 01. Registration of FIR 02. Review Petition u/s 7(3)(b) of the RTI act 2005 03. 1st Appeal u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 04. 2nd Appeal u/s 19(2) of the RTI Act 2005 05. Complaint U/s 18 of the RTI act, 2005 06. Complaint under Right to Public Service Guarantee Act-2012 07. Complaint u/s 4 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 08. District Police Complaint Authority if the PIO belongs to Police Department. 09.Complaint under Consumer Protction Act -2019 View Whistle Blowers protection Act 2014 View Odisha Right to Public Service Act -2012 View Odisha Right to Public Service Rules View Website of ORTPSA

View Post »

SC-To-HC-9

All the High Courts must hold meetings of their respective Committees for “Ensuring the Implementations of the Decisions of the Apex Court” on a monthly basis All the High Courts must hold meetings of their respective Committees for “Ensuring the Implementations of the Decisions of the Apex Court” on a monthly basis, in order to ensure compliance of both the past and future directions issued by this Court at all levels, and to also ensure that monthly compliance reports are being submitted by the concerned authorities. The Orders, directions, and Guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are binding on all courts and governments as per the provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, but since the Apex Court did not show its teeth to the Governments and Courts, these are flaunted for wrongful gain. For Example, The Hon’ble Orissa High has not complied with the direction of the apex court given in the Priyanka Srivastava case in 2015 and in Sakiri Basu as to not to entertain any petition lodged before it for the Registration of FIR till the remedies of Section 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3)  of CrPC.,1973 and more than 20000 Twenty thousand order were issued by the Oriss HC directing the police to register the FIR since 2015 It is a universal fact that the Advocates extort fees from the client considering the high Court a picnic stop and for the filling of the Petition to secure an order for the registration of FIR the registry of the Orissa HC also collected illegal money from the lawyers to pass the same as one preprinted format is provided to all the advocates for the registration of FIR without any argument or merit of the case. Lalita Kumari’s judgment cannot compel a police station or SP to register the FIR violating the guidelines of Devender Anand’s judgment as even Lalita Kumaris; judgement has five exceptions. Officers in charge of the police stations are confused what to do as no proper training ever provided to them by the Police Training Academy. There is a SHAYARI in this regards ; नई हवाओ की शोहबत बिगाड़ देती है, कबूतरों को खुली छत बिगाड़ देती है, जो जुर्म करते हे इतने बुरे नहीं होते, सजा न देके अदालत बिगाड़ देती है. https://youtu.be/Ck8IvXgxJHw?si=ElHZMvweA85sFnO2 View Judgment

View Post »

panchsheel-1

Cases of Circumstantial Evidence The Doctrine of Panchsheel The Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. While dismissing the appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the principles as follows : (i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness’s evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.   (ii)Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. (iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.  (v)The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. Cases of Circumstantial Evidence are those where there is no eye witness and in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State Of Maharastra, 1984 Air 1622, 1985 SCR ( 1) 88. the Five Golden Principles were propounded by the Apex court to deal with the cases of the Circumstantial evidence.   in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh  it is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it is consistent only with the guilt of accused and every other possible hypothesis is excluded.   View Gist View Judgement

View Post »

NCPCR-1

Understanding the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of NCPRC & ORs Vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Civil Appeal No.7968 of 2019.  It was felt expedient to enact a law constituting special commissions to protect the rights of children. Parliament enacted the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPCR Act’). The CPCR Act envisages the constitution of a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCPCR/National Commission’) under Section 3 and the State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commissions’) under Section 17.  The goal which they both set out to achieve is the same, viz., protecting children from all sorts of abuse, exploitation etc. We see no reason why there should be any disharmony and lack of coordination between these two institutions. This noncooperation and lack of coordination can only occur when the persons manning the institutions put their own interests over the interest of the children. It is only when those in charge of such commissions give themselves so much importance that they forget that they are the creation of statute, the only purpose of which is to protect children.  it appears that news reports were published some time in February, 2017 indicating that a childcare institution based in Jalpaiguri in West Bengal had indulged in large scale trafficking of children. The NCPCR took cognizance of these reports on 03.03.2017 and two members of the NCPCR went to Jalpaiguri on 07.03.2017. They requested the State officials to provide them some information which, according to the NCPCR, was not provided. They finally summoned the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal (Respondent no.1 herein) to appear before the NCPCR. This gentleman, instead of appearing before the NCPCR, chose to file a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him. Section 13 of the CPCR Act deals with the functions and powers of the National Commission. Section 24 of the CPCR Act vests the same functions and powers in the State Commissions They must function only for the protection and betterment of children.   These commissions cannot become sources of power, self aggrandisement or means of obtaining the trappings of power like official cars, bungalows etc.  The people who are appointed to such commissions must in a true sense be friends of the children, willing to spend their time and energy to help children rather than pushing their own personal or political interest. we do not refer to the ‘Jurisdictions’ and deal with the ‘functions and powers’ of the Commissions then matters become much simpler. There is no ouster of jurisdiction like in the case of courts. Both the Commissions have similar powers and functions. The jurisdiction of the State Commissions is limited to the State for which such Commission is constituted whereas the National Commission has jurisdiction all over the country and can inquire into any matter in any State.   It envisages the Commission playing an active role in ascertaining the facts relating to the three circumstances dealt with in this provision. It is more than just sending a letter. It is more akin to a preliminary inquiry and if such inquiry indicates that the rights of the children have been violated or the laws have not been implemented or the policy decisions or guidelines have been violated then the Commission. must also suggest remedial measures. We are dealing with children who cannot complain. The Commissions are meant to protect children who have no voice. The Commission can, thereafter, take action by itself if permitted under law or can recommend initiation of proceedings in accordance with law. Any Commission, while conducting an inquiry under Section 13(1)(j) has been given wide powers akin to that of a civil court and has a right to forward any case to a magistrate and the magistrate is required to deal with such case forwarded to him as if the case has been forwarded to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The follow up action which a Commission can take is also clearly set out in Section 15 of the CPCR Act which empowers the Commission to make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority for initiation of proceedings including prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit. This is a recommendatory power but normally we would expect that the Government would accept the recommendation of the Commission in this regard. The second power given to the Commission is to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction. The Commission can also recommend the grant of interim relief to a victim under Section 15(iii) of the CPCR Act. The aforesaid provisions which set out the powers relating to inquiries and steps to be taken thereafter clearly indicate that the inquiry contemplated is more than only gathering of information, and is more in the nature ofan investigation or inquisition. Any Commission, while conducting an inquiry under Section 13(1)(j) has been given wide powers akin to that of a civil court and has a right to forward any case to a magistrate and the magistrate is required to deal with such case forwarded to him as if the case has been forwarded to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The follow up action which a Commission can take is also clearly set out in Section 15 of the CPCR Act which empowers the Commission to  make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority for initiation of proceedings including prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit. This is a recommendatory power but normally we would expect that the Government would accept the recommendation of the Commission in this regard. The second power given to the Commission is to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction. The Commission can also recommend the grant of interim relief to a victim under Section 15(iii) of the CPCR Act.

View Post »

PreventiveDetention5

A citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of State officials. Jharkhand High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order dated 04-09-2024 by the District Magistrate, East Singhbumi whereby the petitioner was put under preventive detention as per Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (‘Act’), a Division Bench of Ananda Sen, J.* and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 04-09-2024 along with the orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024 by the Additional Secretary of department of the Prisons and Disaster Management…. Background :- By way of the present petition, the petitioner had also challenged orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024 passed by the Additional Secretary of the department of Prisons and Disaster Management whereby the order dated 04-09-2024 was confirmed and further extended to 03-03-2025, respectively. The petitioner submitted that no case was made out to detain him as he was neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element as per Section 2(d) of the Act. The petitioner also said that the officials of the district were trying to convert a ‘law and order’ problem into a ‘public order’ problem for harassing him. The petitioner submitted that if the cases against him are scrutinized in light of the affidavit submitted by him, it would suggest that in three cases out of them either the final form had been submitted, or he had been acquitted. The petitioner also submitted that he was on bail and the State had not filed any application for cancellation of his bail. The State submitted that there were pending criminal cases against the petitioner and it was necessary to detain him as the Station Diary Entries suggested that he was a threat to the general public of the locality and society as a whole. It was also said that the impugned order mentioned the importance of keeping the petitioner in custody for conducting assembly elections of the State peacefully and to control the crime rate in the area.  Analysis and Decision :-  The Court noted four cases against the petitioner wherein either the final form had been submitted in favour of the petitioner or he had been granted bail. It was said that apart from these four, the remaining cases culminated in a ‘law and order’ problem and it could not be said that there was disturbance of public order. The Court referred to certain cases decided by the Supreme Court wherein it was said that a person can only be considered as a threat to the public order if he creates ruckus by his behaviour and creates terror in the minds of the public at large. However, the Court stated that this was missing in the present case. Further, the Court found that the cases of 2016 and 2023 were criminal in nature, whereas, the other pending case was regarding fraudulent purchase and sale of government land which suggested that the petitioner was not ‘anti-social’ as per the definition of the Act and could not be said to be a habitual offender. The Court made reference to Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 633 wherein it was held that the State is not without remedy in case the detenu is a menace to the society and that taking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy. The Court stated that the Station Diary Entries had not culminated into any criminal case and that merely entering said entry wherein some acts are alleged cannot be the ground to detain a person. The Court found it surprising that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries were criminal and cognizable in nature, then why had the State not filed any First Information Report (‘FIR’) regarding the same. Thus, the Court concluded that the Station Diary Entries were made only for detaining the petitioner without any basis and that if it is accepted that he needs to be detained for proper conduction of assembly elections, it would amount to giving unbridled sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election. This, the Court said, would be nothing but playing with the liberty of the citizens. The Court noted that the election process in the State was already over and said that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed even on the pretext of holding fair and proper elections. Lastly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 04-09-2024 along with the orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024. Case Law : –  [Ganesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 4367, Decided on 20-12-2024]… View Judgment

View Post »

right-to-sue-in-civil-matters

Right to sue in Civil Disputes / Matters The Supreme Court explained when does the ‘right to sue’ accrues in a civil case. It observed that the “right to sue” accrues when there is a cause of action that justifies legal action. This means the plaintiff has a substantive right to seek relief, and this right has been infringed or threatened by the defendant. Reference was drawn to the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1, where it was observed that “the words ‘right to sue’ ordinarily mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.”   “For the right to sue to accrue, the right sought to be vindicated in the suit should have already come into existence and there should be an infringement of it or at least a serious threat to infringe the same vide M.V.S. Manikyala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami, AIR 1966 SC 470.“, the court added. “Thus, “right to sue” means the right to seek relief by means of legal procedure when the person suing has a substantive and exclusive right to the claim asserted by him and there is an invasion of it or a threat of invasion. When the right to sue accrues, depends, to a large extent on the facts and circumstances of a particular case keeping in view the relief sought. It accrues only when a cause of action arises and for a cause of action to arise, it must be clear that the averments in the plaint, if found correct, should lead to a successful issue. The use of the phrase “right to sue” is synonymous with the phrase “cause of action” and would be in consonance when one uses the word “arises” or “accrues” with it.”, the Court explained. Background The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh heard a case where the appellant’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of a subsequent suit as being barred by law, was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The appellant challenged the respondent’s subsequent suit, filed nine years after the rejection of an earlier suit. The earlier suit, filed in 1993, was rejected in 1998. The Court observed that under Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC, the right to sue, or the cause of action for filing a subsequent suit, arises from the date of rejection of the earlier suit (1998).   The Court further clarified that while the limitation period for filing a subsequent suit begins to run from the accrual of the right to sue, it does not continue indefinitely. Such a suit must be filed within three years from the date of the rejection of the earlier suit. View Gist View Judgement

View Post »

blog-05-01-2025

The Pillars of Democracy colieded for the wrongful gain The Pillars of Democracy Colieded with each other for the wrongful gain and violated the Rights to Privacy and Rights To Forgotten of innocent domiciles by illegally booking, detaining, arresting and forwarding him in the jail custody violating the rule of law, directions of the comptent authority(s) and the guidelines of the apex court given in the Lalita Kumari and Devender Anand cases. and the new media spread this false news for their TRP and subscriptions. Registration of FIR :  Registration of FIR is strictly prohibited if the information is found wild, vague and lodged to settle the civil score and the same is directed to the IICs and SPs by the CID-CB vide notification No. 31797 Dt. 31-08-2019 issued in compliance of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissionerate police Vs Devender Anand, Crl. Appeal No.834 of 2017.The guidelines of the Supreme Court given in the Lalita Kumar Vs State of UP, 2014 mandates for the inquiry of the veracity of the allegation in the family dispute before registering the FIR.The guidelines of the Supreme court given in the Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2014 prohibited the arrest of the accused if the offense labeled are having less than seven years of punishment. The District Police Department of Puri and Balanga Police Station failed to comply with the above-mentioned rule of law , directions of the competent authority and the guidelines of the apex court as the FIR was registered with the OIC was absent from the duty but his name was used to register the same. offenseThe CUG mobile mo. of the SDPO Nimapara was found switched off and upon some research by the law scholar of the Advocates Chamber it is found that the SDPO is not monitoring the police station as per the Police Circular Order No. 280-86 and found absent from the duty thus he is not reachable an approachable for the domiciles of the District as the CUG mobile No. of the other SDPO such as SDPO, Pipali, Puri City , Puri Sadar were also found switched off and all are engaged in the operation of the Paisa Vahooli Racket of illegal collection of money and extortion even if there is a clear direction of the DGP, Odisha issued vide the PCO No.110 of 2024 Dt. 24-09- 2024 to curve the same but nothing has been done by the District Police Department of Puri to comply with the same.The SP is not monitoring the monitoring the police station as per the Odisha PMR No. 37(a) considering himself above the law and larger than life thus all the police station have become torture and extortion centers. The District Magistrate is not monitoring the police stations of the district as per the Odisha PMR No.21 as he is regularly received his share from the illegally collected bounty by the Police DepartmentThe New papers like “Dharitri” and others news media spread this fake news to achieve the targer of the RTP and subscriptions violating the Rights To Privacy and Rights to Forgotten of the Innocently accused person who is the brother in law of the victim lady who voluntarily confessed before the blogger, practicing lawyer and the human right activist that he does not have any case agaisnt the accused and the FIR was lodged out of anger. The Bangalore Techie Atul Subhash Committed suicide as he has been continuously harassed by the wife and in-laws but nothing has been learnt by the Police Department and News Media before Registering the False FIR No.01/2025 Dt. 02-01-2024 in the Balanga Police Station of Puri District in the absent of the OIC and other authorized police officers. Nothing has been learn by the unfortunate incident of Bharatpur Police Station of Bhubaneswar-UPD, direction issued by the Competent authority(s) and the Guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Orissa high court  as the Judicial magistrate are keeps violating the rule of law , directions of the OHC and the guidelines of the apex court and authorising innocent in judicial custody as he also operates the Paisa Vashooli Racket.   View FIR copy View Complaint copy False News by Dharitri news paper Complaint Lodge before the District Police Complaint authority Direction of Inquiry by OHC to the Khudra District Judge against the Judicial Magistrate

View Post »