Mr Varkey,
Do you have documentary proof of what you are saying ?
If yes, please provide it.
Or it will be assumed to be a figment of your imagination.
I have the documents and there is nothing of the sort anywhere.
(unless of course I cannot read some of the "intentional" illegible handwriting)
RTIwanted
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
>>
>>
>>
>
Do you have documentary proof of what you are saying ?
If yes, please provide it.
Or it will be assumed to be a figment of your imagination.
I have the documents and there is nothing of the sort anywhere.
(unless of course I cannot read some of the "intentional" illegible handwriting)
RTIwanted
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
>>
>>
>>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment