The document is an application filed in the Supreme Court of India appealing a lodgment order dated 16.02.2017 issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court refusing to register a writ petition. The application argues that the Registrar misapplied the law and abused their powers by refusing registration, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights. It requests that the Supreme Court allow correction of the application and pass any other order deemed just in the interests of justice.
Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Notification of defects letter D.NO. 840/2017/X dated 22.03.2017 is being emailed by the Registrar Section X on 27.03.2017 to the petitioner. Petitioner Cured the notified defects and Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion vide D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017 with six paper books for two applications separately.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges the Registrar's refusal to register a previous writ petition on the grounds that no reasonable cause was shown. The petitioners argue that violations of court rules and procedures by the registry and a prior court order provide reasonable grounds. It raises several questions of law regarding what constitutes reasonable grounds for registration and whether the petitioner's fundamental right to access justice has been violated. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari to enforce their Article 21 rights.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
1) The document appears to be a court order from the Court of ADJ-III in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India regarding a petition filed by 12 accused persons seeking discharge from various criminal charges.
2) The petitioners are 10 Indonesian citizens and 2 Indian citizens who have been charged under sections of the Foreigners Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Indian Penal Code relating to violating lockdown orders and hosting foreigners without permission.
3) After examining the charges and investigating materials, the court finds no evidence that the Indonesian petitioners entered India using forged passports or violated the terms of their visas. The court also finds no evidence that the Indian petitioners ab
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Notification of defects letter D.NO. 840/2017/X dated 22.03.2017 is being emailed by the Registrar Section X on 27.03.2017 to the petitioner. Petitioner Cured the notified defects and Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion vide D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017 with six paper books for two applications separately.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges the Registrar's refusal to register a previous writ petition on the grounds that no reasonable cause was shown. The petitioners argue that violations of court rules and procedures by the registry and a prior court order provide reasonable grounds. It raises several questions of law regarding what constitutes reasonable grounds for registration and whether the petitioner's fundamental right to access justice has been violated. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari to enforce their Article 21 rights.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
1) The document appears to be a court order from the Court of ADJ-III in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India regarding a petition filed by 12 accused persons seeking discharge from various criminal charges.
2) The petitioners are 10 Indonesian citizens and 2 Indian citizens who have been charged under sections of the Foreigners Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Indian Penal Code relating to violating lockdown orders and hosting foreigners without permission.
3) After examining the charges and investigating materials, the court finds no evidence that the Indonesian petitioners entered India using forged passports or violated the terms of their visas. The court also finds no evidence that the Indian petitioners ab
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
1. Om Prakash, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lower court order from Begusarai, Bihar related to criminal case under Section 498A.
2. The petitioner claims the lower court order directly infringes on his fundamental rights and involves the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. The petitioner is seeking for his writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench of seven judges, as he believes the matter involves constitutional issues across two state jurisdictions.
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The High Court of Madras is monitoring the investigation of Crime No. 1 of 2021 conducted by the CB-CID of Tamil Nadu. The Court notes that the accused officer, Rajesh Das, has been placed under suspension by the state government as directed in a previous court order. The investigating officer informs the Court that statements have been recorded from 87 witnesses so far and several pieces of evidence have been collected and examined. The Court expresses satisfaction with the progress of the investigation but directs the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 8 weeks. The Court also notes that it cannot consider the accused's claims of a conspiracy at this stage of the investigation.
Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a curative petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India by Om Prakash against an order of the court dated October 21, 2016 in a previous writ petition. The curative petition seeks to set aside the previous order on grounds of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The filing index lists the documents being submitted in support of the curative petition, including affidavits, court orders being challenged, photographs, petitions submitted to the Chief Justice of India, and an application seeking cancellation of process and quashing of criminal proceedings.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
The convict petitioner Rakesh had served 14 years of life imprisonment and was granted parole for the first time. However, he was unable to furnish the required surety bonds due to poverty. The court noted the poor conditions of the petitioner. It directed legal and prison authorities to prepare a database of all convicts to better consider them for parole and reintegration. Considering the long imprisonment, the court granted the petitioner 40 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond and undertaking to return to prison after. It aimed to follow reformative punishment and uphold convicts' rights per the constitution.
The petitioner challenged an opinion by a Foreigners Tribunal that held she was a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 24, 1971. The High Court set aside the opinion and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference made to it by the police, which was to determine if the petitioner entered between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. The Tribunal instead ruled she entered after March 25, 1971. The High Court held this was impermissible and sent the matter back for the Tribunal to rule on the actual terms of the reference.
Points to be kept in mind while deciding sessions trialLegal
This document might provide some help to those who are dealing with Sessions Trial in Indian Courts. All care is taken to cover all points but if you find some mistake or some addition or deletion is required to me made, please inform me by e-mail:- hanifkaiz@yahoo.in
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant Sudesh Kedia who was accused of offenses related to terrorism funding. Kedia was accused of paying extortion money ("levy") to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) in order to operate his coal transportation business smoothly. The Court found that payment of extortion money alone does not amount to terrorism funding. It also found that meeting with TPC members to pay extortion money does not by itself indicate conspiracy with the terrorist organization. The Court concluded that a prima facie case of terrorism funding offenses was not made out against Kedia based on the evidence and granted him bail.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
- The petitioner was detained in prison for over 14 years after being acquitted by a court. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking release and compensation for his illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court of India noted that the petitioner's detention after acquittal was unjustified and that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, would be meaningless if the court could not order compensation for violations of fundamental rights.
- The court ordered the state government of Bihar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner for his unlawful incarceration of over 14 years, in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. However, the petitioner could still
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
1. Om Prakash, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lower court order from Begusarai, Bihar related to criminal case under Section 498A.
2. The petitioner claims the lower court order directly infringes on his fundamental rights and involves the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. The petitioner is seeking for his writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench of seven judges, as he believes the matter involves constitutional issues across two state jurisdictions.
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The High Court of Madras is monitoring the investigation of Crime No. 1 of 2021 conducted by the CB-CID of Tamil Nadu. The Court notes that the accused officer, Rajesh Das, has been placed under suspension by the state government as directed in a previous court order. The investigating officer informs the Court that statements have been recorded from 87 witnesses so far and several pieces of evidence have been collected and examined. The Court expresses satisfaction with the progress of the investigation but directs the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 8 weeks. The Court also notes that it cannot consider the accused's claims of a conspiracy at this stage of the investigation.
Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a curative petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India by Om Prakash against an order of the court dated October 21, 2016 in a previous writ petition. The curative petition seeks to set aside the previous order on grounds of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The filing index lists the documents being submitted in support of the curative petition, including affidavits, court orders being challenged, photographs, petitions submitted to the Chief Justice of India, and an application seeking cancellation of process and quashing of criminal proceedings.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
The convict petitioner Rakesh had served 14 years of life imprisonment and was granted parole for the first time. However, he was unable to furnish the required surety bonds due to poverty. The court noted the poor conditions of the petitioner. It directed legal and prison authorities to prepare a database of all convicts to better consider them for parole and reintegration. Considering the long imprisonment, the court granted the petitioner 40 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond and undertaking to return to prison after. It aimed to follow reformative punishment and uphold convicts' rights per the constitution.
The petitioner challenged an opinion by a Foreigners Tribunal that held she was a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 24, 1971. The High Court set aside the opinion and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference made to it by the police, which was to determine if the petitioner entered between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. The Tribunal instead ruled she entered after March 25, 1971. The High Court held this was impermissible and sent the matter back for the Tribunal to rule on the actual terms of the reference.
Points to be kept in mind while deciding sessions trialLegal
This document might provide some help to those who are dealing with Sessions Trial in Indian Courts. All care is taken to cover all points but if you find some mistake or some addition or deletion is required to me made, please inform me by e-mail:- hanifkaiz@yahoo.in
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant Sudesh Kedia who was accused of offenses related to terrorism funding. Kedia was accused of paying extortion money ("levy") to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) in order to operate his coal transportation business smoothly. The Court found that payment of extortion money alone does not amount to terrorism funding. It also found that meeting with TPC members to pay extortion money does not by itself indicate conspiracy with the terrorist organization. The Court concluded that a prima facie case of terrorism funding offenses was not made out against Kedia based on the evidence and granted him bail.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
- The petitioner was detained in prison for over 14 years after being acquitted by a court. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking release and compensation for his illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court of India noted that the petitioner's detention after acquittal was unjustified and that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, would be meaningless if the court could not order compensation for violations of fundamental rights.
- The court ordered the state government of Bihar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner for his unlawful incarceration of over 14 years, in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. However, the petitioner could still
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
Reply against the third forcible notice of hearing for 17.07.2017 before su...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a reply filed in the Supreme Court of India against a third forcible notice of hearing issued on July 17, 2017 regarding a curative petition. It provides background on the case and argues that the petitioner was forced to file the curative petition regarding a "life and liberty" matter to enforce their constitutional rights. It alleges defects in the processing of the case and provides supporting documentation of communications and orders issued in the case as annexures. The petitioner requests that the forcible notice of hearing be cancelled or addressed by the Chief Justice of India.
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of India for REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF WRIT CRIMINAL AGAINST UNION OF INDIA D.NO.2188 OF 2017
Aggrieved by the reply of Adl. Registrar & CPIO, Supreme Court of India dated 04.03.2017, appellant preferred First Appeal against CPIO of Supreme Court of India dated 07.03.2017 before Ld. Registrar (Admin) & First Appellate Authority (FAA) Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of India alleging planned judicial murder by the Supreme Court of India. It summarizes a long-running legal dispute involving two states and multiple cases related to property and domestic issues. It alleges bias and impropriety and requests intervention into reversing judicial orders and allowing a pending petition to be heard regarding cancellation of legal notices and relief from ongoing criminal cases.
Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before su...Om Prakash Poddar
That the Order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India violated the Part IV of ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. Provision of the Part IV of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard by a Division Court of not less than five Judges provided that a petition which does not raise a substantial question of Law as to the interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and decided by a Division Court of less than five Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous applications connected with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and decided by a Division Court of less than five Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the petition a substantial question of Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is raised.”
That the Writ Petition which has been dismissed by the Order, against which Review Petition is hereby moved, did raise ‘substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any ‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the petition’. The humble Petitioner had submitted this in his Writ Petition, pleadings/arguments and through written submission followed by interlocutory application for constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878.
That a well-designed criminal conspiracy being commissioned and strategy being adopted against the petitioner by the Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court to spoil the valid ground of the case and make it liable to be dismissal with liberty by this Hon’ble Court and to close the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 for enforcement of guaranteed fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21.
Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SCOm Prakash Poddar
Complied the mandatory provision of Order VIII Rule 5 & 6(i) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and filed letter addressed to Chief Justice of India through filing counter.
Petition before Hon'ble President of India dated 27.07.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Petition before Hon'ble President of India AFTER the Writ Petition (Criminal)D 3913 of 2017 before Supreme Court of India against Registrar Supreme Court of India for shielding Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai of Bihar
M.A.D.No.15192 dated 20.07.2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Last Posthumous Petition filed along with Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi against in-built corruption in Law Enforcement agencies which explains as to how Custodian of Law became the killer of Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi and remained unpunished till date.
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
Petition before Prime Minister of India dated 23.08.2017Om Prakash Poddar
WITH A PRAYER TO IMPEACH THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR ISSUING NON BAIL ABLE WARRANT (N. B. W) DATED 08TH SEPT 2011 UNDER SECTION 83 CR.PC. IN CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO 5591 OF 2013 AT SDJM COURT NO. 16 BEGUSARAI BIHAR AND KEEPING IT SECRET SINCE THEN EVEN AFTER THE ON RECORD INTIMATION TO THE CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI IN THE SAME MATTER CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO. 9P OF 2010 DATED 03RD MARCH 2011 AND AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME MATTER BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN MATT APPL 7 OF 2012 ON 23RD JULY 2013
WE ARE LIVING AS REFUGEE IN DELHI BECAUSE OF FORCED DISLOCATION BY THE STATE
THE PETITION WITHOUT SOFT COPY OF ANNEXURES AS HARD COPY OF SAME ANNEXURES FROM P 1 TO P 18 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA WITH THE PETITION Sl. No. P1/ B/ 0108170053 ON 27TH JULY 2017
The document summarizes four writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding charges of rape against a husband.
1. The petitions challenge the constitutionality of sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden of proof on the accused, as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
2. One petition was filed by the accused husband seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him for offenses including rape of his wife under section 376 of the IPC.
3. The lawyers for the accused argued that the presumptions under the POCSO Act are unconstitutional and that the original FIR did not mention offenses under section 376 of the IPC.
4
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of India for REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF WRIT CRIMINAL AGAINST UNION OF INDIA D.NO.2188 OF 2017
Aggrieved by the reply of Adl. Registrar & CPIO, Supreme Court of India dated 04.03.2017, appellant preferred First Appeal against CPIO of Supreme Court of India dated 07.03.2017 before Ld. Registrar (Admin) & First Appellate Authority (FAA) Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
The petitioner challenged a second proceeding initiated against her by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner, despite an earlier tribunal opinion finding she was not a foreigner. The court allows the petition, setting aside the second opinion as violating the Supreme Court ruling that the principle of res judicata applies to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. As the petitioner's identity was the same in both proceedings and the tribunal made no finding she was different than the earlier proceedee, the second proceeding against the same person cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be released if detained under the second, now set aside, opinion.
Defects Cure letter dated 19.09.2018 to section x SC Om Prakash Poddar
The petitioner filed a misc. application that was objected to by the Branch Officer for including improper prayers B and C. The petitioner then redrafted those prayers and refiled the application. However, the Branch Officer is now instructing the petitioner over the phone to remove those key prayers from the application. The petitioner refuses to do so as it would invalidate the application. The petitioner questions why the application has not been properly processed or listed for hearing according to the rules.
Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High CourtOm Prakash Poddar
AO NUMBER : 668271/2019 dated 16-10-2019 for Written Arguments along with Affidavit filed before Patna High Court because Judge refused to hear on 14-10-2019
Petition for abuse of police power in W.P. CRL. 137 of 2021 before Supreme C...OmPrakashPoddar1
Hello everyone,
Tomorrow, 02.05.2022, I am going to appear before Supreme Court of India in the hearing of W.P. (CRL) 137/201 against pushing my whole families, siblings and their minor children into the International market of illicit sex trade/hidden prostitution by the nexus of state, mafia and international sex racketeers since 18 years.
If am being killed/murdered, No issue.
I appeal from all Social Workers to pursue this case in the larger public interest.
Find enclosed the soft copy of complete petition and impleadments/intervention applications in W.P. (Crl.) 137/2021 at my linked In profile.
Thanks & all the best for healthy India
Similar to Enclosures of Om Prakash dated 25.02.2017 (20)
Reply to Election Commission Delhi in NGS5322435639 dated 25.11.2022.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ERO Ms. Sunita Raj mobile no. 9650058340 59-Vishwas Nagar Constituency Sahadra district at East Delhi has admitted this fact that she has sent her man for making a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant on 24.11.2022 at Shelter Home DUSIB Code No.214 near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi. Hence, your BLO will disclose the name and address of person for whom he wanted to make fake Voter ID with ulterior motives.
112 call has been made against your fraud BLO dated 24.11.2022 with unique reference no. 6161038, PCR Petrol Vehicle ROMO9A mobile no. 7428002509 at 19.32.34pm. Anand Vihar policeman mobile number is 8595888677. Police had taken him to the police station. Hence police has recorded his name and address and motives behind it.
Inquiry officer Balveer Singh mobile no. 9654963400 of Patpatganj Industrial Area Police Station near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi will provide you the name and address of person who had come to make a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant.
Your fraud BLO did not disclose his identity before complainant.
Complaint dated 27.11.2022 to Commissioner of Polic Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
TAKE the cognizance of obvious links between Ms. Sunita Raj, BLO Anand Vihar and Mr. Manish Raj with this International Sex Racket and direct to concern SHO to register an F.I.R against the accused under relevant sections of IPC.
112 call dated 24.11.2022 at 19.32.34pm with unique reference no. 6161038 and subsequent Complaint dated 25.11.2022 to the Commissioner of Police Delhi dated 25.11.2022 discloses links with Mr. Manish Raj son of Chief Minister of Jharkhand in this International Sex Racket
Suppression of crucial records in Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in W.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 18546/2022 listed for hearing on 28.11.2022 before Chamber Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, Court No.15 CL.NO.1748 may lead to dismissal of petition.
Registry has only recorded the records to defend its heinous work in the Office Report dated 26.11.2022 hiding all the factual crucial records filed by the petitioner even after his reminder though e-filed letter dated 22.11.2022 addressed to Branch Officer and Assistant Registrar Section X
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
Registry has recorded records in his favor only and has ignored the crucial records of petitioner deliberately to dismiss the petition by default.
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 for the hearing of Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18646/2022 on 28.11.2022 has been made hiding the crucial records filed by the petitioner.
Office Report dated 28.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is an office report from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Om Prakash against the Union of India and others. The court had previously given the petitioner four weeks to cure any defects in the petition, but the petitioner has failed to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition within that timeframe. As there are still defects, the registrar has not yet interacted with the petitioner-in-person, so the matter is listed before the court for further directions.
Complaint dated 26.11.22 against Election Officer Katihar Bihar.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
a fake voter identity card has been created by BLO Part-220, Ward No.03, 64-Kadwa Constituency Katihar Bihar vide EPIC No. TYGO395244 against the Complainant. Complainant has figured out malpractices of BLO and submitted requisite form before BLO Gopal Malik mobile no. 9507949474 dated 17.12.2021 for deletion of his name from the voter list to suppress the practice of multiple voter identity cards across the Country.
Complaint dated 25.11.22 against Election Officer Sahadra Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Sex abuser Manish from Election Commission Delhi took my Aadhar Card by fraud to make Voter ID for my kidnapped minor daughter marking me as a legal guardian under Vishwas Nagar Constituency at Sahadra district of East Delhi.
Praying from you to direct the registry to supply the fixed date of hearing to the petitioner in person in writing in Non Bailable and Gang Rape matter W.P. Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 so that he can plan his travel for home
Letter dated 22.11.2022 to Branch Officer Section 10 at Supreme Court of Ind...Om Prakash Poddar
Take all 84 e-filed legal documents with effect from 07.06.2022 to 22.11.2022 along with physical filed legal document with effect from 14.06.2022 to till date on Record of office report for the date of hearing on 25.11.2022
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed deliberately by Supreme Court of India with ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional filed Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed by Supreme Court of India with an ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains information from the Supreme Court of India case management system. It lists details of a writ petition filed by Om Prakash such as the case type, number, year and presiding bench. It also includes a table with 10 uploaded PDF documents related to the petition, interlocutory applications and memos of appearance. General information about the court such as jurisdiction, officers, rules, and procedures is also presented.
E-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Supreme Court ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains details of a case filed with the Supreme Court of India, including the case type, number, year, petitioner and respondent details, and a list of uploaded documents related to the case. It provides contact information for the Supreme Court of India and links to other resources on their website.
Complaint dated 21.11.2022 against Bihar and Delhi police to NHRC.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
The National Human Rights Commission has received a complaint from Om Prakash regarding the kidnapping and abduction of his family members and minor daughters since 2011. The complaint details that neither the Delhi Police nor Bihar Police have registered an FIR regarding this incident. The complaint further states that the police complaint and post-mortem report of Om Prakash's deceased mother, who died in 2017, are still pending with the Palam Village Police Station in New Delhi. Om Prakash alleges that five individuals, including two advocates, can provide information to rescue his minor daughters and has requested that an FIR be registered against these five people.
E-filed status dated 15.11.22 before Supreme Court of India.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
E-filed Important legal documents like Interlocutory Applications for additional grounds and cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant has not been entered into Physical filing case record Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 to present the wrong fact before the Chamber Judge on 25.11.2022
Complaint aginst Delhi Police to NHRC New Delhi dated 20.11.22.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police case.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters. Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Writ Petition Criminal Diary Number 18546 of 2022 Part-I .pdfOm Prakash Poddar
International Sex Racket and Anti-Prostitution Petition before Supreme Court of India.
These five are key people and will reveal all records in this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court New Delhi.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Enclosures of Om Prakash dated 25.02.2017
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.3913
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO SUBMIT
CORRECTED PARA 5 OF THE PERFORMA FOR FIRST
LISTING AGAINST APPEAL BY WAY OF MOTION AGAINST
THE LODGEMENT ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 VIDE
D.NO.3913 OF 2017 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA UNDER ORDER XV RULE 5 OF THE
SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013.
To
10. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble
petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.
MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India is being filed to
enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India with Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO. 3913 of
2017, Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO. 2188 of 2017,
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and Writ Petition
Civil 90 of 2016; whereby Registrar (J-I) of this
Hon’ble court has refused to register Writ Petition
(Criminal) No………. of 2017 (D.No. 3913) under Article
32 of Constitution of India titled as “Om Prakash & Anr
Vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Anr” on the
ground of no reasonable cause received for registration
under order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which has suspended the fundamental rights of the
11. petitioners under Article 21 and closed the door of
this Hon’ble Court for the petitioners forever,
the contents of which are requested to be read as part
of this application, as the same are not being repeated
here for the sake of brevity.
2. That the corrected para 5 of the Performa
for first listing against Appeal by way of motion
against Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 vide diary no.
3913 of 2017 issued by Registrar, Supreme Court of
India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013 has been annexed herein as Annexure P-1 (Page from
07 to 08).
3. That the para 5 of the Performa for the first
listing has been corrected and hence Appeal Crl. M.P.
No……..of 2017 NOT TO BE LISTED BEFORE: Hon’ble Justice
Navin Sinha; Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gagoi; Hon’ble
Justice Prafulla Chandra Pant; Hon’ble Justice Pinaki
Chandra Ghose and Hon’ble Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
12. 4. That there is likelihood of bias against Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 by the two judges’ bench as laid
down in the Yadav Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454.
PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Allow the petitioners to submit a corrected
para 5 of the Performa for first listing
against the Appeal by way of motion against
Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 vide diary no.
3913 of 2017 issued by Registrar, Supreme Court
of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 for consideration of para 03
of this petition/application by this Hon'ble
Court as the same is very necessary in the
interest & furtherance of justice.
13. b) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 23.02.2017.
DIARY NO : 17593
(WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
14. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.3913
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 44 years,
R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as under:-
1.That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and
well conversant with the facts of the case as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
15. 2. That the contents of the accompanying application
for seeking permission to submit corrected para 5
of the Performa for first listing against appeal by
way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated
16.02.2017 of Registrar Supreme Court of India vide
D.NO. 3913 of 2017 under Order XV Rule 5 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which has been drafted
by me [para 01 to 04.],[Page 01 to 04 ] and I, As.
and having understood the contents thereof I say
that the facts state therein are correct which are
based on the official record.
3. That the accompanying application for seeking
permission to submit corrected para 5 of the
Performa for first listing total 08 pages.’
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my
16. knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 23rd
day of February,
2017.
DEPONENT
17. FILING INDEX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017 D.NO.3913
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
2. Appeal with Affidavit 1+3
3. Annexure P-1 1+3
Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 20.02.2017 (Om Prakash)
18. Diary No: 16166
(Widow Asha Rani Devi)
On behalf of Petitioner No.02
RZF-893, NETAJI SUBUSH
MARG, RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI-77
DWARKA SEC-08
MOB: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
19. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.3913
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
APPEAL BY WAY OF MOTION AGAINST THE LODGEMENT
ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 VIDE D.NO.3913 OF 2017
ISSUED BY REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ORDER XV RULE 5 OF THE SUPREME COURT
RULES, 2013.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
20. Supreme Court of India. The Humble
petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.
MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
5. That the present petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India is being filed to
enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India with Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO. 3913 of
2017, Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO. 2188 of 2017,
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and Writ Petition
Civil 90 of 2016; whereby Registrar (J-I) of this
Hon’ble court has refused to register Writ Petition
(Criminal) No………. of 2017 (D.No. 3913) under Article
32 of Constitution of India titled as “Om Prakash & Anr
Vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Anr” on the
ground of no reasonable cause received for registration
under order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which has suspended the fundamental rights of the
petitioners under Article 21 and closed the door of
this Hon’ble Court for the petitioners forever,
the contents of which are requested to be read as part
21. of this application, as the same are not being repeated
here for the sake of brevity.
6. That the Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017
vide diary no. 3913 of 2017 issued by Registrar,
Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 has been annexed herein as
Annexure P-1 (Page from 12 to 14).
7. That the Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 of
Registrar, Supreme Court of India has thoroughly
misconceived that the main grounds espoused by the
petitioners are that the Registrar did not have power
to refuse registration of the earlier Writ petition
filed by the petitioner under the provision of Order
XV, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the petition
having been diarized as Diary No. 2188 of 2017.
8. That the provision of Order XV, Rule 5 of Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 clearly stipulates, “The Registrar
22. may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it
discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or
contains scandalous matter but the petitioner may
within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal
by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court”.
9. That the main ground espoused by the petitioners
are that the Registrar of this Hon’ble Court has
thoroughly abused his power under the provision of
Order XV, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and has
intentionally ignored the valid new reasonable
cause/findings in the garb of no reasonable cause/same
findings to be received for registration under Order XV
Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to protect and
shield the bad elements of state apparatus and to
offend, harass, victimize, infringe constitutional
right of petitioners, suspend the right to life or
personal liberty of the petitioners.
23. 10. That the Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 of
Registrar, Supreme Court of India has thoroughly
misconceived that the petition is not permissible in
law; an Statutory appeal, instead should have been
filed by the petitioners.
11. That the Registrar, Supreme Court of India has
failed to take into account that his Lodgement Orders
dated 28.01.2017 and 16.02.2017 have awarded Capital
punishment/death penalty to the petitioners indirectly
without a written Judicial Order of this final Court.
Moreover, in absence of written Judicial Order of
Capital Punishment, the petitioners cannot now even
move for mercy petition before Hon’ble the President of
India.
12. That the Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 of
Registrar, Supreme Court of India has thoroughly
misconceived that Writ petition is not permissible in
law, however “Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 137 of 2010
24. in C. Muniappan & ORS VS. The Registrar of Supreme
Court of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 52 of 2011
in B.A. Umesh VS. The Registrar of Supreme Court of
India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 77 of 2014 in Mohd.
Arif @ Ashfaq VS. The Registrar of Supreme Court of
India & ORS, Writ (Criminal) 108 of 2014 in Yakub Abdul
Razak Menon VS. The Registrar of Supreme Court of India
& ORS” has been permitted in law by this Hon’ble Court.
13. That being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2017
of Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble Court, the
petitioner is challenging the same on the following
amongst other grounds: -
a)BECAUSE the Writ petition is permissible and
maintainable in law as the same has been permitted
by this Hon’ble Court in the past in number of
cases with citation under para 8 of this appeal.
25. b)BECAUSE there is a sheer violation of set practice,
procedure and rules against Writ Criminal 136 of
2016 by the Registry of this Hon’ble Court as laid
down in the Handbook of this Hon’ble Court to stop
the petitioner no. 02 to agitate the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court.
c)BECAUSE the Registry has circulated an application
for Constitution bench unregistered in Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 and forcibly pushed the
petitioner into Curative Stage.
d)BECAUSE a well-designed criminal conspiracy being
commissioned and strategy being adopted against the
petitioners by the Quasi-Judicial Officer of this
Hon’ble Court since 03.10.2016 to spoil the valid
ground of Constitution bench against the Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and make it liable to
be dismissed with liberty by this Hon’ble Court and
to close the door of this Hon’ble Court under
26. Article 32 for enforcement of guaranteed
fundamental right of the petitioner under Article
21.
e)BECAUSE the petitioners have been subjected to
violation of principle of Natural Justice by this
Hon’ble Court who approached this Hon’ble Apex
Court under Article 32 against rampant atrocities
by the state apparatus in two states and for
enforcement of his fundamental rights under Article
21.
f)BECAUSE the petitioners are NOT re-agitating the
same petition however petitioners have been stopped
by this Hon’ble Court since 03.10.2016 to agitate
the matter at right place before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court as per the set practice,
procedure and rules of this Hon’ble Court.
27. g)BECAUSE new reasonable cause and new findings have
arisen and resulted by this Hon’ble Court.
h)BECAUSE there is evasion of Order XXXVIII of
Supreme Court Rules 2013 against Writ Criminal 136
of 2016 by two judges’ bench.
i)BECAUSE there is likelihood of bias against Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 by the two judges’ bench as
laid down in the Yadav Vs. State of Haryana AIR
1987 SC 454.
j)BECAUSE the petitioners have NOT afforded liberty
to approach Patna High Court in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016, instead the petitioners have
lodged strong protest against it in the open Court
and this Order suffers from biased and prejudiced
judgment by two judges’ bench of this Hon’ble
Court.
28. k)BECAUSE there is sheer violation of Constitutional
Law by this Order and petition raised substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution required and to be decided by a
division court of not less than five judges.
l)BECAUSE this biased Order awards Capital
Punishment/Death Penalty to the petitioners
indirectly.
m)BECAUSE an offence of perjury by the Lower Court
and bad elements of two State Apparatus have been
placed on record in the petition who have been
posing imminent danger to the life or personal
liberty of the petitioners and affecting the
administration of Justice delivered by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in 2013.
n)BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court is shielding and
protecting the bad elements of State Apparatus and
29. offending, harassing, victimizing, awarding Capital
Punishment/Death Penalty without written Judicial
Order indirectly through violating, evading the
Rule of Law initially and through issuing Lodgment
Orders lately, suspending the life or personal
liberty of the petitioners.
PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) To Set aside the Lodgment order dated 16.02.2017 of
Registrar Supreme Court of India and pass an order
for registration of the same and allow the
petitioners to agitate the matter urgently before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court for
urgent relief.
30. b) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 20.02.2017.
(WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
31. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.3913
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 44 years,
R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as under:-
3.That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and
well conversant with the facts of the case as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
32. 4. That the contents of the accompanying appeal by way
of motion against the Lodgment Order dated
16.02.2017 of Registrar Supreme Court of India vide
D.NO. 3913 of 2017 under Order XV Rule 5 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which has been drafted
by me [para 01 to 09.], [Page 01 to 14] and I, As.
and having understood the contents thereof I say
that the facts state therein are correct which are
based on the official record.
3. That the accompanying appeal by way of motion
against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 of
Registrar Supreme Court of India total 14 pages.’
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my
33. knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 20th
day of February,
2017.
DEPONENT
34. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with A Prayer for
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE
AS PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
AND GRANT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY TO PETITIONER NO.01
TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.
OF 2017 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
35. FILING INDEX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
2. ID proof-Voter ID for P-1 & P-2 1
3. Listing Performa 1+3
4. Synopsis and list of dates 1+3
5. W P (Crl) with Affidavit 1+3
6. ANNEXURES P-1 to P-4 1+3
7. Appl. for argue in person 1+3
36. Petitioner in Person
Filed on:03.02.2017 Om Prakash
Diary No: 3913 RZF-893, NETAJI SUBUSH
MARG, RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI-
110077, DWARKA SEC-08
MOB: 9968337815
37. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person in
the above mentioned matter:
New Delhi
38. Dated this the day of 2017
Yours faithfully,
(OM PRAKASH )
Petitioner-in-Person
39. INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Listing Performa A1-A2
2. Synopsis and list of dates B- D
3. Writ Petition (Criminal)
along with Affidavit in support.
4. Annexure: P-1
A True Copy of letter
dated 24.01.2017 by the
Section X of this Hon’ble Court
5. Annexure: P-2
A True Copy of letter dated
25.01.2017 by the petitioner to
Section X of this Hon’ble
Court
6. Annexure: P-3
A True Copy of letter dated
31.01.2017 by the petitioner to
Section IB of this Hon’ble
Court
40. 7. Annexure: P-4
A True Copy of letter dated
01.02.2017 by the Section IB of
this Hon’ble Court to the
petitioner
8. Application for seeking permission
to appear and argue the Writ Petition
(Criminal) in person and grant special
power of Attorney on behalf of
petitioner no.02 along with supporting
affidavit.
41. SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is being filed to enforce
the Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India with Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO.
2188 of 2017, Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016
and Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016; whereby
Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble court has refused
to register Writ Petition (Criminal) No………. of
2017 (D.No. 2188) under Article 32 of
Constitution of India titled as “Om Prakash & Anr
Vs. Union of India & Ors” on the ground of no
reasonable cause received for registration under
order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which has suspended the fundamental rights of the
petitioners under Article 21 and closed the
door of this Hon’ble Court.
The Petitioner is filing the Criminal Writ
petition under the Article 32 of Constitution of
42. India for enforcement of his Rights under Article
21 of the constitution of India.
24.01.2017 Section X sent a letter regarding curative
petition Criminal vide D. No. 41026 of
2016 and informed to process the Curative
petition Criminal for listing before the
Hon’ble Judge-In-Chambers without
Certificate by Sr. Advocate.
25.01.2017 Petitioner replied back to Section X that
the petitioner does not give his consent
to list the Curative Petition Criminal
vide diary no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-
in-Chamber WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR.
ADVOCATE as it violates the guideline laid
down in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra
& Anr. Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388
because petitioner has not filed the
Certificate by Sr. Advocate with valid
43. reason clarified under para 15 of the
same petition.
31.01.2017 Petitioner again sent a letter to the
Section IB of this Hon’ble Court for
notification of defects against Writ
Criminal vide D.NO. 2188 of 2017 as the
same was delayed by the normal time.
01.02.2017 Section X issued a lodgment of
W.P.(C)D.NO.2188/17 as it is not
maintainable and the same does not
disclose any reasonable cause to be
received for registration under Order XV,
Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
03.02.2017 Hence this Writ Petition Criminal
44. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02
W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
45. Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114
VERSUES
1. The Registrar ….RESPONDENT No.01
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
2. Mentioning Officer ….RESPONDENT No.02
Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India Tilak Marg,
New Delhi
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR
PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
46. APPROPRIATE WRIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE
21 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme
Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Petitioner abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASSE
i. The present petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India is being filed to
enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India with Writ Petition Criminal
vide D.NO. 2188 of 2017, Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 and Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016;
whereby Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble court has
refused to register Writ Petition (Criminal)
No………. of 2017 (D.No. 2188) under Article 32 of
47. Constitution of India titled as “Om Prakash & Anr
Vs. Union of India & Ors” on the ground of no
reasonable cause received for registration under
order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which has suspended the fundamental rights of the
petitioners under Article 21 and closed the
door of this Hon’ble Court for the
petitioners forever.
ii. The petitioner is seeking Writ in the
nature of Mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.
iii. Article 21 of Constitution of India
says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law”.
iv. That the Registry of this Hon’ble Court
has violated the set practice, procedure and rules
of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the Handbook
48. of this Hon’ble Court, stopped the petitioner no.02
to agitate the matter at the right place before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court,
circulated application for Constitution bench
unregistered in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 and
forcibly pushed the petitioner into Curative Stage.
v. That the two judges bench of this
Hon’ble Court has evaded the Order XXXVIII of
Supreme Court Rules 2013 and dismissed the Writ
petition Criminal 136 of 2016 with liberty on
21.10.2016 and directed the petitioner to approach
Patna High Court forcibly.
vi. Section X has sent a letter regarding
curative petition Criminal vide D. No. 41026 of
2016 and informed to process the Curative petition
Criminal for listing before the Hon’ble Judge-In-
Chambers without Certificate by Sr. Advocate.
49. A True Copy of letter dated 24.01.2017 by
the Section X of this Hon’ble Court is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-1 (Page 15 from to 15)
vii. Petitioner has replied back to Section
X that the petitioner does not give his consent to
list the Curative Petition Criminal vide diary
no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber WITHOUT
CERTIFICATE BY SR. ADVOCATE as it violates the
guideline laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok
Hurra & Anr. Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388
because petitioner has not filed the
Certificate by Sr. Advocate with valid reason
clarified under para 15 of the same petition.
A True Copy of letter dated 25.01.2017
by the petitioner to Section X of this
Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and
50. marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from 16 to
17)
viii. Petitioner has again sent a letter to
the Section IB of this Hon’ble Court
for notifications of defects
against Writ Criminal vide D.NO.
2188 of 2017 as the same was
delayed by the normal time.
A True Copy of letter dated 31.01.2017
by the petitioner to Section IB of this
Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-3 (Page from 18 to
19)
ix. That Section X has issued a lodgment of
W.P.(C)D.NO.2188/17 as it is not maintainable and
the same does not disclose any reasonable cause to
be received for registration under Order XV, Rule 5
of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
51. A True Copy of letter dated 01.02.2017
by the Section IB of this Hon’ble Court
to the petitioner is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-4 (Page from
20 to 22)
2. QUESTION OF LAW:
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this petition are:-
a) Whether violation of set practice, procedure and
rules against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by the
Registry of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in
the Handbook of this Hon’ble Court to stop the
petitioner no. 02 to agitate the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court not a
reasonable cause to be received for registration
of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?
52. b)Whether evasion of Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court
Rules 2013 against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by
two judges bench is not a reasonable cause to be
received for registration of Writ Criminal of
2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?
c)Whether likelihood of bias as laid down in the
Yadav Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 is not
a reasonable cause to be received for
registration of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide
D.NO.2188 of 2017?
d)Why the Order dated 01.02.2017 of Registrar (J-I)
of this Hon’ble Court has disclosed the
petitioner’s claim of relief in the nature of
prohibition or certiorari only while the relief
has been claimed in the nature of Mandamus also?
e)Why the Order dated 01.02.2017 of Registrar (J-I)
of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that the
petitioners were afforded liberty to approach
53. Patna High Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 while the petitioner had lodged strong
protest against it in the open Court and this
Order suffers from biased and prejudiced judgment
by two judges bench of this Hon’ble Court?
f) Why the Order dated 01.02.2017 of Registrar (J-
I) of this Hon’ble Court has given false
statement that the reliefs claimed in the present
petition revolve around the same subject matter
which came to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court
on 21.10.2016 while previous petition claimed
only two relief whereas the present petition has
claimed nine relief?
g)Why the Order dated 01.02.2017 of Registrar (J-I)
of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that the
petitioners are re-agitating the same petition
while the petitioners have been stopped by the
Registry since 03.10.2016 to agitate the matter
at right place before Hon’ble the Chief Justice
54. of India’s Court as per the set practice,
procedure and rules of this Hon’ble Court?
h)Whether the petitioner approached to this Hon’ble
Apex Court under Article 32 against rampant
atrocities by the state apparatus in two states
and for enforcement of his fundamental rights
under Article 21 to be subjected to violation of
principle of Natural Justice by this Hon’ble
Court?
i)Why this Hon’ble Court is shielding and
protecting the bad elements of State Apparatus
and offending, victimizing the petitioners?
3. GROUNDS
That being aggrieved by the order dated
01.02.2017 of Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble
55. Court, the petitioner is challenging the same on
the following amongst other grounds: -
A. BECAUSE the Registry of this Hon’ble
Court has violated the set practice,
procedure and rules of this Hon’ble Court as
laid down in the Handbook of this Hon’ble
Court, stopped the petitioner no.02 to
agitate the matter at the right place before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court,
circulated application for Constitution bench
unregistered in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 and
forcibly pushed the petitioner into Curative
Stage.
B. BECAUSE the two judges bench of this
Hon’ble Court has evaded the Order XXXVIII of
Supreme Court Rules 2013 and dismissed the
Writ petition Criminal 136 of 2016 with
liberty on 21.10.2016 and directed the
56. petitioner to approach Patna High Court
forcibly.
C. BECAUSE a well-designed criminal
conspiracy being commissioned and strategy
being adopted against the petitioner by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court
to spoil the valid ground of Constitution
bench against the Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016 and make it liable to be dismissed
with liberty by this Hon’ble Court and to
close the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court
under Article 32 for enforcement of
guaranteed fundamental right of the
petitioner under Article 21.
D. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court is shielding
and protecting the bad elements of State
Apparatus and offending, victimizing the
petitioners.
57. 4. AVERMENT
i) That the Petitioner does not have any
alternative and efficacious remedy for enforcement
of his fundamental rights.
ii) That the present petitioner has filed Writ
(C)90 of 2016 and Writ(Crl.) 136 of 2016 petition
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the
interlinked subject matter of the present petition
under different cause of actions and under
different cause title.
-:PRAYER:-
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased:
(i) To issue a writ of prohibition or other
appropriate writ order or direction
58. directing respondent No.01 and 02 to
prevent violation of the set practice,
procedures and rules as laid down in the
Handbook of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India and allow the petitioners to
agitate the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India’s Court.
(ii) To pass such other orders and further
orders as may be deemed necessary on the
facts and in the circumstances of the
case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL
AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 03.02.2017.
Settled by: Petitioner
59. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar, aged 43
years, R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar
Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and
well conversant with the facts of the case as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
60. 2. That the contents of the accompanying Writ Petition
Criminal [para 1 to 04.], [Page 01 to 12] and
Synopsis and List of Dates (Page B to D’], and I,
As. having understood the contents thereof I say
that the facts state therein are correct which are
based on the official record.
3. That the Writ Petition Criminal Paper Book contains
total 29 pages.’
4. That the annexures are true copies of their
respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my
knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
61. Verified at New Delhi on this the 3rd
day of February,
2017.
DEPONENT
62. ANNEXURE P-1
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Regarding Curative Pet. D.No. 41026/16
1 message
Section X, Supreme Court of India <sec.x@sci.nic.in>
Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:52
PM
To: om.poddar@gmail.com
D.NO. 4293/2016/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI.
January 24, 2017
FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077
CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ... OF 2016 (D.No. 41026)
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 825 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016
63. (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)
OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners
-Vs-
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ...Respondents
Sir,
With reference to Point No.1 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter
above-mentioned, I am directed to inform you that no action is called for
on your letter dated 16.12.2016 sent via e-mail dated 17.12.2016 as the
writ petition and the review petition have been dismissed on merits by
this Hon'ble Court and the Curative petition has been filed.
With reference to Point No.2 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter
above-mentioned,I am directed to further inform you that the curative
petition above-mentioned is being processed for listing before the Hon'ble
Judge-in-Chambers and you shall be informed about the date of listing in
due course.
Yours faithfully
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
64. ANNEXURE P-2
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn:The Registrar (Miscellaneous)
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:20
PM
To: sec.x@sci.nic.in
Date: 25.01.2017
To,
The Registrar (Miscellaneous)
Section X
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sub: Reply to your email letter vide diary no.
4293/2016/X dated 24.01.2017 -reg.
Hon’ble Madam,
1. That the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition
Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF
65. INDIA & ORS” vide diary No.2188 dated 18.01.2017
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India.
2.That the petitioner does not give his consent
to list the Curative Petition Criminal vide diary
no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber WITHOUT
CERTIFICATE BY SR. ADVOCATE as it violates the
guideline laid down inRupa Ashok Hurra vs
Ashok Hurra & Anr. Reported in (2002) 4 SCC
388 because petitioner has not filed the
Certificate by Sr. Advocate with valid
reason clarified under para 15 of the same
petition.
3.That it is the discretion of Hon’ble Registrar
Misc. either to process or not to process the
same for listing under the above circumstances on
her own risk.
Prayed for urgency accordingly,
Petitioner-In-Person
Om Prakash
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony
New Delh-110077
Mob:9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com
66. ANNEXURE P-3
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn:The Registrar Judicial (Section IB)
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:41
PM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
To,
The Registrar Judicial
Section IB
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sub: Regarding Notification of defects against diary
No.2188 dated 18.01.2017-reg.
Hon’ble Sir/Madam,
1.That the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition
Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS” vide diary No.2188 dated 18.01.2017
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India.
67. 2.That the petitioner has not given his consent
through his email letter dated 25.01.2017 in
response to the letter dated 24.01.2017 vide
diary no. 4293/2016/X of Registrar Misc. Section
X to list the Curative Petition Criminal vide
diary no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber
WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR. ADVOCATE as it
violates the guideline laid down in Rupa Ashok
Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr. Reported in
(2002) 4 SCC 388 because petitioner has not
filed the Certificate by Sr. Advocate with
valid reason clarified under para 15 of the
same petition.
3.That the matter pertains to imminent
danger to the life and liberty of a Senior
Citizen Oxygen dependent Women as well as an
offence of perjury committed by the Lower
Court.
4.That the petitioner is trying to mention
the matter before Hon’ble the Chief justice
of India’s Court since 03.10.2016 but being
stopped by the Registry of this Hon’ble
Court.
5.That this happens to be the last resort
under the legal remedy before COURT OF LAW
for the petitioner. As this is a 12 years
68. long matter.
6.That the notification of defects has been
delayed by the normal time by Section IB.
7. That the petitioner is praying for urgent
notification of defects so that the matter
could be listed urgently and eventually
could be mentioned urgently for urgent
relief.
Prayed for urgency accordingly,
Filed on: 31.01.2017 OM PRAKASH
New Delhi: PETITIONER IN PERSON
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony
New Delh-110077
Mob:9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com
69. ANNEXURE P-4
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Letter regarding lodgement of W.P.(C) D.No. 2188/17
1 message
Section X, Supreme Court of India <sec.x@sci.nic.in> Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM
To: om.poddar@gmail.com
D.NO. 501/2017/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. February 1,
2017
FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ... OF 2017 (D.No. 2188)
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)
OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners
70. -Vs-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Sir,
With reference to the writ petition above-mentioned filed by
you on 18.01.2016, I am to inform you that the same was placed
before Ld. Registrar(J-I) on 28.01.2017, when the Ld.
Registrar was pleased to hold that the present writ petition
is not maintainable and the same does not disclose any
reasonable cause to be received for registration under Order
XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Photocopy of the
Order is enclosed herewith.
This is for your information.
Yours faithfully
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
71. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL.M.P. NO. OF 2017
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR
AND ARGUE THE WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) IN-
PERSON AND GRANT OF SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
ON BEHALF OF PETTIONER NO.02.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble
petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.
72. MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
14. That the present petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India is being filed to
enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India with Writ Petition Criminal vide D.NO. 2188 of
2017, Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and Writ
Petition Civil 90 of 2016; whereby Registrar (J-I) of
this Hon’ble court has refused to register Writ
Petition (Criminal) No………. of 2017 (D.No. 2188) under
Article 32 of Constitution of India titled as “Om
Prakash & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors” on the ground
of no reasonable cause received for registration under
order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which
has suspended the fundamental rights of the petitioners
under Article 21 and closed the door of this Hon’ble
Court for the petitioners forever, the contents of
which are requested to be read as part of this
application, as the same are not being repeated here
for the sake of brevity.
73. 15. That BY THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY I, Widow Asha Devi,
wife of Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar, residing at ASHA
DEEP NIWAS, Vill-Kantiya Panchayat, Shukkar Haat
Sonaili, in front of Durga Mandir, P.S. Kadwa,
Distt-Katihar, Bihar-855114 being petitioner no.02
in Writ Petition (Criminal) of 2017 before this
Hon’ble Court do hereby authorize/ appoint Shri Om
Prakash, petitioner no.01 S/O Late Shri Deep
Narayan Poddar residing at RZF-893, Netaji
Subhash Marg, Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam Colony, New
Delhi-110077 my attorney in my name and on my behalf
to appear and argue the Writ Petition (Criminal) no.
of 2017 before this Hon’ble Court.
16. That N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 u/s 498A process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. has been issued against petitioner no.02 as well
which has been disclosed by the Ld. CJM Begusarai
through RTI reply dated 27.08.2016.
17. That petitioner no.02 is an oxygen dependent COPD
74. patient and undergoing treatment with AIIMS at New
Delhi which is on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Record with
SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013, Writ (C) 90 of 2016, Writ (Crl.) 136 of
2016, Review (Crl.) 825 of 2016, Curative (Crl.) vide
diary no. 41026 and Writ (Crl.) vide D.NO.2188 of 2017
therefore she is unable to attend the proceedings of
this Hon’ble Court.
18. That the Central Information Commission (CIC) order
dated 25.09.2014 and NALSA letter dated 13.05.2015 have
not been complied by all the three tier of legal Aid
Institutions in India whereby and where petitioner has
been denied access to services of legal Aid directly
and indirectly, which has resulted in wrong judgment by
the Ld. Trial Court and extremely painful journey of
petitioner in person at all the three tier of Hon’ble
Indian Courts throughout seven years from 2010 to 2016.
Petitioner is scared of Legal Aid Advocates. Evidences
75. have been placed on record against legal aid
institutions with Writ Civil 90 of 2016.
19. Petitioner does not want to engage any Advocate
against his Writ Petition (Criminal) no…….. of 2017
even if so provided by this Hon’ble Court.
20. That the Petitioner is well conversant with the
facts of the case and competent enough to argue the
case before this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Kindly permit the Petitioner to appear and argue
the Writ Petition (Criminal) in-person and grant
special power of Attorney on behalf of petitioner
no.02.
76. b) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 03.02.2017.
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI
77. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.OF 2017 D.NO.2188
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
AND
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REGISTRAR ….RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 43 years,
R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as under:-
5.That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and
well conversant with the facts of the case as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
78. 6. That the contents of the accompanying application
Under Section 151 C.P.C. for seeking permission to
appear and argue the Writ Petition (Criminal) in
person and grant of special power of attorney on
behalf of petitioner no.02, which has been drafted
by me [para 01 to 07.], [Page 23 to 27 ] and I,
As. and having understood the contents thereof I
say that the facts state therein are correct which
are based on the official record.
3. That the accompanying application Under Section 151
C.P.C. for permission in person and grant of
special power of Attorney total 07 pages.’
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my
knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
79. Verified at New Delhi on this the 3rd
day of February,
2017.
DEPONENT