Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

there is no need to specify name since order under contains the name there is no purpose in quoting the in every para of court order there are many instances where supreme court has criticised decisions of high court but i havent found hon'ble judges have quoted name of high court judges who passed order at least in each every para of judgment or repatedly in several para's there cases where many judgments of same have been criticised and still supreme court has not quoted name of such judges in the judgment viadya --- On Thu, 9/8/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote: From: Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, 9 August, 2012, 6:46 AM Sir, Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation. The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute. When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation of the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it makes the functioining of the Commission impossible. Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr. Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi. Mr Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi. This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC officers making them approach High Court for stay. BJ Varkey, Advocate On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote: Dt.08/08/12 It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks. It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies available. JKGaur      Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800 From: djshah1944@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied that this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi Dear All   I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of respect towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is used while addressing any Court of judicature.  This is my observation and experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate. Sorry if I have intervened  in your discussion, but intent was only to share my experience.   On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Prasad I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi. Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document. Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it. It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good. Sarbajit On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mr Sarbjit sir >                     you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but dont > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity with Mr. > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also other > side which may call you as wrong. > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which personal > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote judgment > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he has > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said to > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible for > contempt of his own court. > > > viadya > -- Regards Indrani Mukherjee Advocate 9811394136