Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Supreme court advocate required

(Querist) 05 September 2015 This query is : Resolved 
Respected Sirs,
I want to prefer an appeal to Supreme court in cheque bounce regarding inadequate compensation ordered to be given to victim/complainant.
Can anybody suggest me an advocate AOR.

I am ready to pay the fees as per the standards of the Supreme court middle class legal aid center or near about it.
Thanks with Regards,
R.K Nanda (Expert) 05 September 2015
contact legal aid cell of SC.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 06 September 2015
Contact legal aid cell of Supreme Court.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 06 September 2015
What is the outcome of the revision filed in the high court by either of you both parties?
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 06 September 2015
What is the outcome of the revision filed in the high court by either of you both parties?
Guest (Expert) 06 September 2015
Above Expert Mr.R.K.Nanda Is A Supreme Court Advocate You could contact Him If required.
Madhu Mittal (Querist) 07 September 2015
Respected Sir raj kumar makkad ji in particular and other Sirs in genral,
In a case one . Benefit of probation under 138 NI cases is given.
From our study points of view, decision is wrong on two clear cut grounds:
Giving benefit of probation under 138 NI cases is wrong as per case decided by 1.MANU/KE/0163/2009 Equivalent Citation: 2009CriLJ1703 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Cri. Rev. Petn. No. 429 of 2000 Decided On: 30.01.2009 Appellants: M.V. NalinakshanVs. Respondent: M. Rameshan and Anr.
For Giving benefit of probation, report of probation officer is a condition precedent , in our case there was no report of probation officer 2. The Supreme Court has held in M.C.D. v. State of Delhi MANU/SC/0376/2005 that consideration of report of probation officer is a condition precedent to release the accused under Section 4(1) although Court is not bound by such a report.
Madhu Mittal (Querist) 07 September 2015
Respected Sir raj kumar makkad ji in particular and other Sirs in genral,
In a second case, we approached to Supreme Court directly after our revision was dismissed by Session court without going to High Court, as there is a bar for second revision and powers of session court and High Court are equal. But at the time of hearing at Supreme Court, it was decided by our learned late advocate Sh. L.C.Goyal that petition should be withdrawn and it should be file before High Court First. So petition was withdrawn. Subsequently High court was approached, but as per order dated 30.06.2015, it was decided by the High Court that after going to Supreme Court and application withdrawn there, it was not maintainable at our level.
This is again against the decision of the Supreme Court MANU/SC/0432/2000 Equivalent Citation: AIR2000SC2587 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA C.A. No. 12309 of 1996 Decided On: 19.07.2000 Appellants:Kunhayammed & Ors.Vs.Respondent:State of Kerala & Anr. Hon'ble Judges:
K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :