Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

Dear Mr Varkey

What you have written was not meant to be circulated so widely.
It is better that these things come out in the Court so Mr.Gandhi
can be exposed thoroughly.

Sarbajit

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