BALAGANESH NADAR
11 June 2010 at 18:13
To
Lawyers Club
Sub: Request to clarify my doubts as follows
Dear Sir/Ma’am
I B.BALAGANESH, s/o G.BALASINGH, I am the member of our LAWYERS CLUB, After completing Bachelor of Business Law(B.B.L) I am pursuing LL.B 2nd Year in Asian College of Law, Sarsawa(U.P), New Delhi. I am the General Secretary of DHARMA SENA, and also legal adviser of various private voluntary organizations and trade unions.
In Tamil Nadu the state government produced one government order for abolishing the Names in other languages (Hindi & English) in the board of the firm (shops), the government compel the public to publish their firm’s Name only in tamil through that G.O, other ways they collect fine from the traders. In that G.O the state government said that every trader should publish their firm’s name:- a]5:5 size in tamil language(Big size & Compulsory) b]3:3 size in English language(Small size& optional) c]2:2 size in other languages(Very Small size & optional)
I am not agree with that G.O of the state government. Because it is only a G.O, it is not a Law, and also its violate the fundamental rights of Right to speech and expression, Right to carry on business.
In all records my signature is in Sanskrit language (T.N.Govt don’t like it) even then it is my individual right; like that Musalmaan’s publishing their firms name in some unknown foreign language (I don’t like that language) in friend of their shops. No body like it even then it is the right of him/her.
I want to issue notice against that G.O in among the public for creating awareness and also to disobey that G.O through private voluntary organizations. Hence you are humbly requested and pleased to furnish some previous judgments (rulings) regarding that “Expression through any language is the fundamental rights” and “Trader can publish their firm’s name in any language”
Anonymous
11 June 2010 at 16:25
i have been chargesheeted under u/s 323 & 324. however in the court order this is written as
1.above named accused volunterly hurt Mr.A that you have commited off. u/s 323
2. on the same intention you hurt To Mr. B with sharp weapon, you have commted off. u/s 324.
in this order in point 2 mr. b is mentioned instead of mr. a by mistake.
This can help me in any way. Secondly as per fir i broke the glass of tea and hurt fingures of Mr.A. But there is a false MLR. Police not recovered that piece of glass any fingure prints, not obtain any blood sample from place of incident. Basically this ldged by govt. doctor husband to humilate me. what should i do.
Recently he lodges a false fir u/s 326, but on my compliant ssp order inv., on that its founded by police false and in the process of cancellation, can it work as evidence for wrongness of my husband
advocateinindia
11 June 2010 at 12:14
Hello Members,
I am advocate, I want to file an appeal against the National Commission’s order and in Supreme Court, Kindly refer me a good and competitive advocate for Consumer matter practicing in Supreme Court…
where we have filled complaint under section 2 d (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, on the ground of consumer “as beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid”, Where An order has been passed in our favor from Dist. Consumer Forum the opposite party filled an appeal in state commission, where though legally all points were in our favor, but somehow state commission has issued order against us, while giving reason “the party in the suit cannot be said to be consumer”, due to new plea being taken up by the respondent’s lawyer. I cannot understand that the how state commission can issue such an order on the ground that we cannot be considered as a “consumer”, when the Dist. Consumer Forum has admitted our complain and after looking towards the fact has justified the matter in our favor?
Then after we have filed an appeal before the National Commission, where the National Commission has not looked into the fact of the matter, dismissed the appeal on its admission date itself, without looking towards the documentary proofs, citations & Legal aspects being taken up by us in the state commission. It just relied on the state commission’s order on only one point that “the party in the suit cannot be said to be consumer”. Then we filled review petition before the national commission again to get it justified again, but It was again dismissed by the commission with reason that “ petitioner seek to reargue the matter, which is not the scope of a review petition”.
Anonymous
10 June 2010 at 23:39
i was told that no appeal can be filed by the contempt petitioner and the right to file appeal vests only with the contemnor.
shantanu dekhane
10 June 2010 at 09:20
What kind of Amendment should be needed to fast disposal of the mercy petitions?
valte nkc thang
08 June 2010 at 20:21
I am really confused with the schedules of our constitution specially VI/VII/VIII. can u suggest me any book or give me an advice about it.
MURARI
08 June 2010 at 20:04
I AM WRITING A DISSERTATION ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT;
REQUIRE ASISTANCE IN THE MATTER :
PL SUGGEST BOOKS, ARICLES IN PERIODICALS OR ANY OTHER SOURCE.
aditya gupta
08 June 2010 at 15:32
i am writing an article on the theme PROTECTION OF SCHEDULED TRIBES: PROMISE & PERFORMANCE... what do the the words 'promise and performance' exactly mean and imply? does it mean the promises that have been made by the constitution and the performance of those promises? or does it mean the promises that should be made and performed to improve their condition?
please put in your suggestion as i am in need of help...
Anil
06 June 2010 at 15:06
Determine the 'Creamy Layer” amongst SEBCs. (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes)
According to the aforesaid G.R. SSP-1194-KH-109-A-of-01-11-1995 dated 01-11-1995 (Gov. of Gujarat)“income criteria” are to be reviewed and modified every three years or less.
Even though there were clear directions for such review, there was only one review after 9 years in 2004 revising the original limit of Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakh.Since then there is no Change.
NCL/OBC income limit is 4.5 lkh by Government of India,from 2008
NCL/SEBC income limit is 2.5 lkh by Government of Gujarat,from 2004
This is a clear case of violation of Article 16(1),16(4)and
violation of Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949 [Constitution]
The protective discrimination in the shape of job,
reservations under the limit to be prescribed
should not be such as to result in
taking away with one hand what is given
with the other. The income limit must
be such as to mean and signify social
advancement.
SEBC income limit for Non-creamy layer certificate in different states of india is as per given below.
1)Kerala 4.5lkh from 05/10/2009
2)Maharastra 4.5lkh from 1/04/2009
3)U.P. 5.0lkh from 20/10/2008
4)M.P. 4.5lkh from 02/06/2009
5)Chattisgarh 4.5lkh from 24/06/2009
6)A.P 4.0lkh from 04/04/2006
And so on
So My query is that this is violation of Article 16(1),16(4)and
violation of Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949 [Constitution] or not ?
Anil
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Review in contempt
Is it possible for review of order of contempt in High Court?