| Thank you very much Sir.
I have another doubt.
When we make a Power of Attorney we are told that it should have two witnesses who witness your signing, with their name address and date.
We are also told that it should be notarised.
Where are all these requirements listed out? Power of Attorney act does not say any of it.
Regards
Mohan Raj --- On Sun, 2/9/12, Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com> wrote:
From: Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, crmohanraj@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, 2 September, 2012, 8:13 AM
Dear C R Mohan Raj
I believe, Shri Sarbajit Roy , is right in informing ALL herein , that you have the right to invoke section 191 / 193, [which is appended hereunder fro clairty sake] and disprove it by way of cross-examination or counter-affidavit & seeking indepth investigation of it, that will be rewarding for you.
But please keep in mind that if it becomes other way TRUE, the Opponent may use the same stick, hence not in vogue off late.
Thanks & Regards,
UDAYPRABHU- 093 222 666 17
==================================================================================================================================
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 191. Giving false evidence Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 193. Punishment for false evidence Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
=========================================================================================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: Satish Kumar Kapoor Sent: 08/31/12 07:22 PM To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
Dear Sir It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree. S.K.Kapoor
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".
--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM
| First they gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps required are: 1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom proceedings; 2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and orders; 3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges; 4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts; 5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7, 15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions. 6. Etc. On a different level: 1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth; 2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public life; 3. Judicial reforms; 4. Administrative reforms; 5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, etc. I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic, Regards --- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM
dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal
--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM
| I know what you mean. I am facing a similar serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy". Just this morning, I filed an application for disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The "judge" gave another adjournment!!!! Now, after if I still fail after one more try, am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court. I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has to be some limit to nonsense. Could some lawyer friends in this group provide some guidance on the matter please? Would you or any other aggrieved reader friends care to team up?
--- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM
what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".
--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM
Dear Friend: Right away, I should inform you that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles. Therefore: You should consult good lawyer, You could consider filing a perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal jurisprudence), But you should keep in mind that such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original complaint, So, (my preference), do a clever written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries, Wait till your case is heard and finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint. (I should warn you that India's laws are plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of judges.)
--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
%0 |
| | | | |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment