Tugas
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•112 views
Proses memulai sistem operasi sedang berlangsung. Dokumen ini tidak menyediakan informasi lebih lanjut selain proses boot atau memulai sistem operasi.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Expert report "North Сaucasus: Quo Vadis?"
Report of the Head of the Scientific direction 'Political Economy and Regional Development' Gaidar Institute Irina Starodubrovskaya and senior researcher at the Institute Gaidar Kazenin Constantine, on the situation in the North Caucasus. Report of January 14, 2014 submitted to the Committee of Civil Initiatives.
Presentatie AxFlow
NL:
Presentatie voor Axflow gemaakt op school als project.
EN:
Presentation made for Axflow as a school project.
Recommended
Expert report "North Сaucasus: Quo Vadis?"
Report of the Head of the Scientific direction 'Political Economy and Regional Development' Gaidar Institute Irina Starodubrovskaya and senior researcher at the Institute Gaidar Kazenin Constantine, on the situation in the North Caucasus. Report of January 14, 2014 submitted to the Committee of Civil Initiatives.
Presentatie AxFlow
NL:
Presentatie voor Axflow gemaakt op school als project.
EN:
Presentation made for Axflow as a school project.
Corruption exposure doc
In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the officials of three different RTI public authorities were oofficially confirmed through their RTI Statutory document on date 15/06/2012, 22/06/2012, 16/11/2012 & 07/12/2012 about the concerned judicial authorities and the concerned judicial members in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were fraud , cheated the public, Legal councils, Central Government of India and Union Government of India by did not follow the mandatory clause 19(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 more than three years from 1st,Jan 2010 up to 31st May 2012 wantonly not allowed to post the matter for final disposal, and not disposed the matters 4500 to 6000 matter per single calendar year likewise more than three(3)years by 5 benches. Factually each bench in the NCDRC must dispose minimum 75 to 100 matters, likewise 5 benches must dispose 900 to 1200 matter per 12 months. But the concerned judicial authorities and concerned judicial members were involved in corruption / bribery not discharge their judicial executive services by not allowed to post the selected matters for final disposal and not dispose the matters 4500 to 6000. During the period 1st January 2010 to 31st May 2012 dispose less than 50% matters per single calendar year. The concerned judicial authorities were evidently favor to the corporate, banks, foreign banks etc., by wantonly dragging selected matters of CC original complaints, and Firs Appeals and Revision petitions, and they were indirectly getting monitory benefit from corporate, banks, foreign, banks etc., According to mandatory section 13(3A) of the consumer protection Act 1986 and according to Mandatory clause 11 of the consumer protection regulations 2005 all the consumer forums must dispose all matters within 90 days and should not exceed Five(5) months. But within our country India the consumer courts not follow the mandatory sections of the C.P.Act 1986 and not follow the mandatory clauses of consumer protection regulations 2005 and not follow the mandatory rules 1987. When the consumer court did not follow the statutory act how can we were the public expect justice in consumer grievance? Is question of Law? All of our Indian citizens aware of that every consumer court judicial authorities and judicial members must follow the statutory act 1986. But why in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the concerned judicial authorities and the concerned judicial members did not follow the mandatory clause 19(1) of the consumer protection regulations 2005 not dispose the matter 4500 to 6000 matters just because of corruption / bribery. If the fit matter not come to the final disposal and not disposing matters 75 to 100 per month we were the appellants and complainants not able to get justice and by just dragging consumer complaints by the concerned judicial authorities the corporate, foreign banks and banks etc.,evidence attch NCDRC
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Corruption exposure doc
In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the officials of three different RTI public authorities were oofficially confirmed through their RTI Statutory document on date 15/06/2012, 22/06/2012, 16/11/2012 & 07/12/2012 about the concerned judicial authorities and the concerned judicial members in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were fraud , cheated the public, Legal councils, Central Government of India and Union Government of India by did not follow the mandatory clause 19(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 more than three years from 1st,Jan 2010 up to 31st May 2012 wantonly not allowed to post the matter for final disposal, and not disposed the matters 4500 to 6000 matter per single calendar year likewise more than three(3)years by 5 benches. Factually each bench in the NCDRC must dispose minimum 75 to 100 matters, likewise 5 benches must dispose 900 to 1200 matter per 12 months. But the concerned judicial authorities and concerned judicial members were involved in corruption / bribery not discharge their judicial executive services by not allowed to post the selected matters for final disposal and not dispose the matters 4500 to 6000. During the period 1st January 2010 to 31st May 2012 dispose less than 50% matters per single calendar year. The concerned judicial authorities were evidently favor to the corporate, banks, foreign banks etc., by wantonly dragging selected matters of CC original complaints, and Firs Appeals and Revision petitions, and they were indirectly getting monitory benefit from corporate, banks, foreign, banks etc., According to mandatory section 13(3A) of the consumer protection Act 1986 and according to Mandatory clause 11 of the consumer protection regulations 2005 all the consumer forums must dispose all matters within 90 days and should not exceed Five(5) months. But within our country India the consumer courts not follow the mandatory sections of the C.P.Act 1986 and not follow the mandatory clauses of consumer protection regulations 2005 and not follow the mandatory rules 1987. When the consumer court did not follow the statutory act how can we were the public expect justice in consumer grievance? Is question of Law? All of our Indian citizens aware of that every consumer court judicial authorities and judicial members must follow the statutory act 1986. But why in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the concerned judicial authorities and the concerned judicial members did not follow the mandatory clause 19(1) of the consumer protection regulations 2005 not dispose the matter 4500 to 6000 matters just because of corruption / bribery. If the fit matter not come to the final disposal and not disposing matters 75 to 100 per month we were the appellants and complainants not able to get justice and by just dragging consumer complaints by the concerned judicial authorities the corporate, foreign banks and banks etc.,evidence attch NCDRC
Viewers also liked (9)
Al hijr ayat 94 - 96 dan hadits tentang perintah berdakwah (yudy, yulian)
Al hijr ayat 94 - 96 dan hadits tentang perintah berdakwah (yudy, yulian)
Tugas
- 1. Booting…
- 13. Sekian dari Kami, jika ada pertanyaan kami persilahkan . . .