True. Supreme court is meant to decide cases involving constitutional law or substantial questions of law of general importance. But we see it deciding questions of facts making it the final court of fact which was never intended by the framers of the constitution.
On 27 Feb 2015 12:13, "SURESHAN P" <sureshandelhi@gmail.com> wrote:Have you anybody recollect the turnaround in Gujarati teestas anticipatory bail case. At the time when the case listed before a bench headed by justice Mukhopadyaya, court, insisted the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail. Ex minister kapil sibal, appeared for the petitioner, used his clout and managed to adjourn the case. Subsequent event was dramatic as letter sent to cj and he, violating all procedural practices, directed to list the matter before another bench. New bench took a totally different view and granted protection to the petitioners. 1)just imagine whether this is possible in a common man's case? 2) only people who CAN ENGAGE KAPIL SIBAL like lawyer can achieve this kind of milestone. This is happening because of discretionary powers given by statute. That is why litigants are spending in lakhs for engaging big seniors even though no serious questions of law involved or no need of lengthy arguments. Face value matters in such cases. this is a biggest cheating of justice system which nobody likes to recognise. Removing any kind discretionary power to judges will improve the system. It is not impossible to adopt a standard rules for every kind of bail matters. Same court in same case coming with different opinions will not happen in such circumstances
On Feb 26, 2015 7:04 PM, "P. A. Pouran" <advpouran@gmail.com> wrote:Dear All,If the 'Vacation System' is abolished, we can have some relief.
On Wednesday, 25 February 2015, Boompelli Venkatrao <boompellivenkatrao@gmail.com> wrote:I am 71 my case of land aquisation case for RTC at Karimnagar is pending At AP High Court for the last 20 years, when it will come to bench I do not know
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Gopalarao Rao <gvgrao33@gmail.com> wrote:It is quite correctMy case is pending in the Highcourt for the last eight years and I am now 82 and I don't know whether I can see the judgement before I die .
Sent from my iPad" Large pendency of cases in Indian courts and non-implementation of judicial reforms have been cited by the World Bank as one of the key reasons for India's low rank on the Bank's Index of 'Ease of Doing Business" says TOS.
How can this be true ? Most of the business disputes are now resolved through arbitration. Most recoveries of banks financial institutions are done through SARFASI proceedings. The pendency is mostly in litigation involving stakes of common people. This appears to be the case in SC as well. Where is the cause for worry for the Business ?
--
Thanks & Regards
P.A Pouran
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Re: [IAC#RG] Court pendency behind India's low global ranking: World Bank
Please remember it does so only the biggest of the money bags. Can you recollect the number of times Raja and Kanimozhi applied for bail in the apex court? And the cases where appellants have been ordered to approach the lower courts?
regards n bw
ravi
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Chandrasekhar P <chandrasekharadv@gmail.com> wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.