Reading the 23 messages on this board, gave the impression that none of those who have written has ever been a litigant even in a lower court, forget the Supreme Court.
Try being a litigant at least once, without money, influence, power...and then write a message. And then, try to sincerely congratulate the chief Justice. You may not be able to.
RE:Say it once agin
by HariKrishna Alur on Apr 08, 2007 05:53 PM Permalink
Try getting your work done with the politicians without all that you have referred and try to confront one politician and tell me u r enthralling experience.
By the way I am not so enamoured by the judiciary either
RE:Say it once agin
by bharat Maheshwari on Apr 08, 2007 04:46 PM Permalink
don't forget, indian Govt is the biggest litigant.
and who is responsible or vaccant seat in various high court, distt court and SC. IT is GOvt of india or the polito class, who have reason to make sure then citizen shoudl shy away to use this option
RE:RE:Say it once agin
by bharat Maheshwari on Apr 08, 2007 04:52 PM Permalink
true, but that is the right given to litigent by idnian law, judiciary has no control.
But Section 35- B of the CPC alos allows the other side to be given "costs for causing delay", to " reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him attending the court...."
HAs any one ever got this when a matter has been listed and adjourned for no real reason?
This would of course include the money that the other person had to pay the lawyer who appeared for him.
Has any lawyer ever asked for this for his client? Obviously No , for more than one obvious reasons.
RE:Say it once agin
by Arvind on Apr 08, 2007 05:04 PM Permalink
my dear..mayb we r not litigant...but i can tell tht ur stupid and fool...u went thru 23 messages to writa a msg...lol.. wht a waste of time...u proved urself
RE:Say it once agin
by Sriram Vangal on Apr 08, 2007 04:45 PM Permalink
She is perhaps a litigant. She dosn't seem to know lawyers are responsible for the pile up. If only the cut down on the adjournments by 50% there wont be any back log
RE:Say it once agin
by sheila das on Apr 09, 2007 05:27 AM Permalink
1) i am not a lawyer.
i was dragged into litigation by a lawyer from the lower court , through the High Court, to the Supreme Court.
MArch 5th 2007- the matter has celebrated its 7th glorious anniversary in Court.
It s been in the Supreme Court since May 2002 August. It has been heard by at least 13 judges in the Supreme Court.
The matter is still pending in the Supreme Court after a Review Petition on the final Judgment.
The media reported the Judgement as: "..........Breaking precedent, the Supreme Court passes a ......ruling in favour of the ......".
When it is a lawyer on the other side precedence is/ has to be broken! ! ! ( Not even a Supreme Court lawyer-just a lower court lawyer.)
The review Petition was dismissed but, with the condition that the Apex court could be approached if the orders were violated.
The orders were violated , naturally. What else do one expect of the most influential /powerful /the most privileged for whom the law has been changed/ precedence has been broken ? ? ?
The petition filed showing violation of orders was also dismissed .One of the Judges said in court, "you have to file a petition for contempt." The contempt was so obvious.
Not that i am going to file a contempt. It s no use when Article 142 seems to have been amended/ cancelled for the sake of a lawyer litigant.
It is not that i am disillusioned. It is just that i am aware that it is of no use.
During the hearing of the Appeal , when "compensatory costs in respect of false or frivolous claims or defences " (Section 35-A of the CPC) , had been sought, one of the Judges had said :,"it cannot be illegal."
When it is by a lawyer that more than 100 such petitions/defences have been filed, what is "legal" will automatically be re-defined.
No one would believe this story , except that:
1. the Final Judgement which is on the Supreme Court Web Site has clearly disregrded 10 of the 15 Supreme Court/ MAdras High Court/ Bombay High Court /Kerala High Court/ Orissa High Court Decisions (Judgements) and 2 Foreign Judgements cited.
2. The list of Indian books ( Judgements) cited are also on the SC Web Site. And it was annexed along with the Review petition and the subsequent petition asking for relief on violation of orders.
3. Of the 5 Decisions (Judgements) referred to in the Judgement 2 were mis -quoted and 3 dismissed as : %u201Cthe facts of that case are different%u201D. Obviously, if all the 17 Decisions cited were to be referred to, the final Judgement in the matter could not be what has been delivered by the Apex Court.
4. About 6 orders of the SC have been taken off the internet. But , some of them have been quoted in the final Judgement, tell-taling that they exited once upon a time.
When things had been going too bad , ( unreasonable adjournments, posting deleted from the list at the last moment, After hearing the matter for a whole week the bench refusing to complete hearing the matter, wrong information from the SC registry, and innumerable other obstacles) a registrar of the SC was approached for re-dressal of grievance, the reply given was :"The Supreme Court is the only honest institution in the country."
2) I had to read all the messages before writing anything, because I didn%u2019t want to write an irresponsible statement. Speaking about the Supreme Court of India is serious matter.
So going back to the original post, and only to say , without money, without influence, without the right contacts hoping to get justice is only wishful thinking. (Remember the Jessica Lal case? ? Rather to early in the day to be forgotten)
