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.

pocso

POCSO Act and Guideliens Table of Contents “Romeo-Juliet” are not criminals Supreme Court Urges Union To Bring ‘Romeo-Juliet’ Clause In POCSO Act To Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships From Prosecution The Court directed that a copy of its judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, suggesting that the legislature consider introducing safeguards of this nature. The Court also recommended evolving a mechanism to penalise those who deliberately misuse POCSO provisions to settle personal scores or exert social pressure. View Gist View Judgement Acts of mutual love and affection between a young couple will not amount to sexual assault under the POCSO Act “In cases of this nature, since it is evident that the alleged aggrieved person has indicated that she is no longer interested in pursuing with the matter and all those who are involved are also not keen to prosecute the matter, it may perhaps be a futile exercise for the prosecution to ensure conviction of the accused under such circumstances.” The Court relied on the decision in Vijayalakshmi and Anr. v. State, where the Madras High Court had observed that the object of POCSO was not to bring within its mandate cases involving romantic relationships between teenagers and adolescents. The Court also relied on the Calcutta High Court decision in Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal. View Gist View Judgement If HusbandAccused Is Convicted Then Victim Wife Future Would Be Ruined “To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in the present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, the husband is taking care of his wife and in case, the husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, the wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare,” the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed as it quashed the rape-POCSO case against the accused. View Gist View Judgement Government of India Guidelines for the Investigation of Crime Against Women and the Establishment of IUCAW. View Odisha Government’s guidelines View Government of India’s guidelines POCSO Act leads to inclease in Vindictive Litigations Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Rojasin Rout Vs State of Odisha, CRLMC No.3460 of 2023 Para-31 View Gist View Judgement Pocso Act was not enacted to punish lovers Acts of mutual love and affection between a young couple will not amount to sexual assault under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) Punishing An Adolescent Boy Who Enters Into A Relationship With A Minor Girl Was Never The Objective Of POCSO Act View Post How Convicted by Hook or by Crook Gujarat HC asks the state to identify cases where Rape convictions are based on weak evidence. to hear such appeals on priority View Judgment View Gist False Allegation of POCOS offence “False claims and allegations pertaining to cases of molestation and rape need to be dealt with an iron hand due to the serious nature of the offences. Such litigations are instituted by the unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will capitulate to their demands out of fear or shame. Unless wrongdoers are not made to face the consequences of their actions, it would be difficult to prevent such frivolous litigations.” View Judgment View Gist Strong proof shall be required to proceed with POCSO Act Considering the stringent nature of punishment provided for the offence, in the opinion of this Court, stricter proof and serious allegations are required. It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the punishment for an offence shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. View Judgment View Gist Compromised between the victim & accused cannot be a ground for acquittal The attempts made by the High Courts across the country in quashing of POCSO cases on view of compromises between victim and accused, has weakened the legislative intent behind the enactment of POCSO, Act 2006. Compromises like marriage between accused and the minor victim, undermines the principles of justice and the rights of victims. The objective behind the POCSO Act’ cannot be ignored merely because abusers marry minor victims to escape conviction. View Post Special Judge, Public Prosecutor ‘Prima Facie’ Guilty Of Negligence In POCSO Case: Madhya Pradesh HC Remands Matter To Consider DNA Report While hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case where evidence on a DNA report was not taken, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that both the trial court and the Additional District Public Prosecutor (ADPO) are “prima facie” guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty. View Post Provide Counselling and Education to the POCSO Victims – Supreme Court Remove the Trauma of the Victims Educate the Victims Ensure Rehabilitation-money is not enough States or the Legal Service Authority Ensure the compliance. Page-16 Of the Judgement – SLP No. 11331 of 2019 View Gist View Judgement Victim did not raised an alarm despite having opportunity to do so. Jharkhand Highc Ourt set aside conviction. Victim had wilfully left the house of her father with the accused Stayed at various places She never pressed the alarm Victim is quate mature View Gist View Judgement Guidelines issued in NCPCR Vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID WB., Civil Appeal No.7968 of 2019. This case is a classic example where in the fight between the State Commission and the National Commission the children have been, all but forgotten. We are sorry that this Court has to spend its time resolving such disputes. This Court as well as the two major parties litigating before us definitely have better things to do. Both the NCPCR and State Commissions have to work for the best interest of the children in a spirit of cooperation. 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

View Post »

ADM-is-not-DM

Addition DM/Collector cannot exercise all the power of a DM/Collector ADM-is-not-a-DM

View Post »

natural-justice

Principle of Natural Justice. The provision crafted in the doctrine of the principle of natural justice is the binding principle to all the courts, quasi-judiciary forums as well as the administrative office. It has the following main Aspects. No one should be a judge in his own matter. –  Nemo Judex In Causa Sua. No one can be condemned unheard. –Audi alteram partem The party is entitled to know every reason and the decision taken by the authority. – Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex., meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself” Unreasoned Order Granting/Rejecting Bail Application raises presumption of non application of mind.- Any Order passed contravening statutory provisions is void ab initio. Judgement cannot be sustained in the absence of reasoning – SC remands matter to HC to decide afresh Bail order must be backed by reasons considering vital aspects– SC sets aside “Casual & Criptic Order Any order or judgment passed violating the principles of natural justice is considered ab initio void. The same is also held in the judgement of ; Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs State of UP, 2007  Vishnu Agarwal Vs State of UP, 2011 Recall Application Siemens Engineering VS UOI, 1976 Mahipa Vs Rajesh Kumar, Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2019 State Project Director…. Vs Saroj Maurya, Civil Appela No.3465 of 2023 Authority or court Not to pass unreasoned order/judgment Unreasoned judgment presumes nonapplication of mind. Judgment cannot be sustained in the absence of reasoning. Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2022 Not to pass cryptic order/judgment.  Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex., meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself” Mukesh Singh Vs State of NCT Delhi, 2020 No one shall be a judge in his case: Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa. Bias in the Investigation by the Police where he is a complainant.   G.P.Srivastava Vs R.K.Raizada & Ors. SC-2020 Justice can only be achieved if a defendant is given a reasonable opportunity to prove his case.   in Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others wherein, it was observed that ‘the principle of natural justice means, a fair hearing should be given to the concerned person and the same would not necessarily imply oral hearing’, State of Odisha Vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, Civil Appeal No.3036-3064 of 2022, SC Any order passed in contravention of statutory provisions is VOID AB INITIO: SC Exception to the National Justice; Empty Formality Theory. In some cases, the Supreme Court had held that if the Admitted and indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible court may not compel the observance of natural justice. The law on the point is very well-settled that where the conclusion is controversial, natural justice with all its rigours is indispensable. View Judgement of Uma Nath Pandey View Siemens Engineering Judgement View Manoj Kumar Khokhar Judgement View G.P.Srivastava’s Judgement View Mahipal’s judgement View Mahipal’s Gist View Sulekh Chandra Pradhan’s Judgement View Sulekh Chandra Pradhan’s Gist View Rohit Bishnoi’ Judgement View Rohit Bishnoi’s Gist View Saroj Saurya’s Judgement View Saroj Maurya’s Gist

View Post »

bail-us-88-crpc

Bail u/s 88 of CrPc.,1973 or u/s 91 of BNSS-2023 Section 88 of CrPc.1973 and 91 of the BNSS-2023 provide the valuable right to the accused to get bail from the trial court if he has not been arrested during the investigation. No need for the apply of the regular bail. Relevant case Laws : –  Smt. Reena Vs State of Uttarakhand State of Kerala Vs Raneef, Supreme Court, SLP 7999 of 2010 But the same is not available to those accused who are not complying to the summon and bailable warrant issued by the court and if the none-bailable warrant issued by the court for the appearance of the accused. It is a settle provision of law that the court will not be provide any remedy to those who have not come with clean hands. Navneet Bhadauria Vs State of UP,  Application 7515 of 2024 u/s 482 of CrPC.,1973,  View Smt. Reena judgment View Dr. Raneef Judgment View Navneet Bhadauria’s Judgment

View Post »

Delay-Condonation

Law of Limitation and Delay Condonation Delay Has To Be Condoned Irrespective Of Length Of De0lay If There Is ‘Sufficient Cause’  Mool Chandra v. UOI-2024 . “It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC,107 The above decision expressing the intention of justice-oriented approach percolating down to all the courts was rendered  nearly three decades ago but unfortunately, the case on hand demonstrates the pervading insensitive approach, which apart from continuing the agony of the litigants concerned has also unnecessarily burdened the judicial hierarchy which after going through the entire process will have to set the clock back, at this distant point in time and prolong their agony. SLP (C) No. 27901 / 2005, SC 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is  espected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Supreme court in the case of DDA Vs Tejpal & Ors., 2024 re-interated in para-43 of the judgement that;  “On account of the third wave of Pandemic, the aforementioned order dated 23.09.2021 was finally modified on 10.01.2022, with a total period of approximately 716 days between 15.03.2020-28.02.2022 being excluded from the operation of limitation.    View DDA Vs Tejpal & Ors. Judgment

View Post »

CAP-2019-47-1-b

Remedy of Section 41(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Jurisdiction of State Commission. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction– (a) to entertain– (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit; (ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees; (iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Its a Revisional Jurisdiction of The State Commission. (2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit: Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench. (3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it: Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, — (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain. View the Direction of the Food Supply and Consumer Welfare Department

View Post »

hook-or-crook

Accused cannot be convicted by hook or crook Since right to fair inquiry, investigation and trail is the fundamental right of an accused  So the Supreme court in the Criminal Appeal No. 1008-1009 of 2007 mandates that “The prosecution/investigating agency is expected to act in an honest and fair manner without hiding anything from the accused as well as the Courts, which may go against the prosecution. Their ultimate aim should not be to get conviction by hook or crook” That the police and prosecution agency cannot hide any fact from the court which is requred to reach at a concluding in a proceeing. “Even the conduct on the part of the investigating officer in suppressing the aforesaid fact from the court is required to be condemned. It appears that in fact the investigating officer and the prosecution deliberately withheld the aforesaid fact from the court. View Supreme Court Judgment

View Post »

ganeshPuja-2024

Ganesh Puja-2024 celebration at the Advocates Chamber Ganesh Puja-2024 Today with the grace of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu, we celebrated the Ganesh Puja-2024 at our Advocates Chamber, Cuttack, Odisha.  with the auspicious present of the associate Lawyer Sri T.K.Dwibedi and Others.

View Post »
LegalBlogs
Advocates Chamber

recall

Recall of an Order / Judgment No man should suffer because of mistake of the Court, nor a person should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. Any order / judgement is passed by a court can be recalled if if is passed; in violation of the principles of natural justice . obtained by fraud play upon the Court, when the Court is misled by a party. when the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party  If procedure is violated S-362 CrPc.,1973 – Application seeking recall of an order maintainable when it seeks only procedural review – SC – Ganesh Patel Vs Umakant Rajoria-2022 S-362 not a bar Recall application is different than the review application. SC :  Budhia Swain Vs Gopinath Deo, Civil Appeal No. 955 of 1995, decided on Dt. 07-05-1999. the Supreme court in the case of Vishnu Agarwal Vs State of UP, 2011 said that; “Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the Respondent was an application for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 and not for review. In Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under: There is a distinction between…a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.  In the case of Asit Kumar Kar Vs State of W.B. & Ors, decide on 31-01-2009, Supreme court court said in para-5 “The aforesaid direction in paragraph 40 of the judgment was passed without hearing the persons whose licences were ordered to be cancelled. In fact even the implead applications of such persons were rejected. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence.” In the Seven Judge Constitution Bench of this Court, A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, it has been observed in paragraph 55 thereof:so also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity. “No man should suffer because of mistake of the Court, nor a person should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities.”       Dt.  View Asit Kumar’s Judgement View Vishnu Agarwal’s Judgement View A.R.Antulay’s Judgement View Budhia Swain Vs Gopinath Deo’s Judgement Supreme Court recalls its order in 2025 as Fraud vatiates everything Orissa HC recalls its order in 2025 as No One Should Suffer Because Of Court S-362 CrPc.,1973 not a BAR View Ganesh Patel Vs Umakant Rajoria’s judgement

View Post »