SHRI JYOTISH GURU
06 February 2014 at 12:06
DOES CONSTITUTION HAS ANY LAW WHICH ALLOWS ONE TO REVIEW A CONTEMPT PETITION
anup
05 February 2014 at 17:54
CAN AN IRREGULAR ACCOUNT BE DECLARED NON-PERFORMING ASSETS BY BANK, INSPITE OF DEBT RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER?
shivanand
04 February 2014 at 11:38
Author : shivanand
Posted about 11 hours ago
dear sir/madam
actually now case is remanded back to DC dharwar with direction to pass appropriate order, in-spite of clear instruction in the amendment to consider the caste w.e.f 19/04/1991, but the judgments are being issued with retrospective effect, but why judges considering the amendments with "retrospective effect"?
In view of this is it issue of judgments is bad?
sir kindly advise how to defend our case with DC
any of the judgments/ rulings issued any of the Hon'ble courts considering the amendments with prospective effect? known to kind self may please me advice
regards
shivanand desai
09986980722
swadesh
03 February 2014 at 18:57
I want to run training center ( fashion design). It is allowed to run in residence / ground floor or basement.
Is non-nuisance certificate an option. As traiing centre can not be run in mall/shopping center.
shivanand
02 February 2014 at 14:14
dear sir/madam,
i am shivanand desai my query is above mentioned subject,
The constitution (scheduled tribe) order(second amendment)bill,1991 (karnataka)
in there mentioned given below
A bill to provide for the inclusion of certain tribes in the list of scheduled tribes specified in relation to the state of karnataka
BE it enacted by Parliament in the forty-second year of the Republic of india as follows:
1. (1) This Act may be called the constitution (scheduled tribe) order(second amendment)bill,1991.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of april,1991.
Amendment of the constitution(
scheduled tribes) order,1950.
2. In the scheduled to the constitution (scheduled tribes) order,1950 in "PART VI.--karnataka" in item 38, the following shall be inserted at the end, namely:--
" Naik,Nayak,Beda,Bedar and valmiki".
all these above mater is mentioned in this amendment so please advice me these are all caste are considered as PROSPECTIVE or RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT? in this bill put not also mentioned as a w.e.f 19/04/1991
please sir its very urgent for me
because of in our PTCL case judgment the Hon'ble judge of high court of karnataka telling its retrospective effect its revert back to presidential order 1950.
so as soon as possible give me reply,,please
regards
shivanand
rajesh kumar singh bhadouria
01 February 2014 at 20:38
respected members please help me " heare is an unathuraize agrculture equipments manufacter factaory beside my house they make a lot of noise all the day and some time in the night too. we are all bothers to this . pleae tell me where can i file a case and cai i gat satey order agaist the factory which purly illegal and unautharize .
thanks
TR Madhavan
27 January 2014 at 16:20
As the A P State Reorganisation bill found incomprehensive one to reject the same notice has been given under rule 77 by the Chief Minister, some of the cabinet colleagues countered it as they not been consulted it should not be taken up as given by the government. Speaker has earlier during the ongoing session rejected notice under same rule given by another party. One more MLA has suggested extension of the tenure of the existing MLAs for two years after the division, to enable increase assembly constituencies and completion of delimitation process.
Clarification sought is
If the bill is in comprehensive should it be treated as a draft one and the same can be rejected by the assembly?
When the members have sought several information with related to the bill, is it the duty or not of the Union Government to furnish the same to complete the process?
When the speaker once rejected the notice given under the same, should he reject the new notices also?
Should delimitation of constituencies as per reserved population etc process be completed before or after the division of the states?
Hope, the clarification will remove the confusions from minds of young woters of India.
lakshman kumar
27 January 2014 at 11:30
henceforth or hereafter jenukuruba not to be considered as st previously considered cannot be questioned I require gazette notification for the above subject matter
K LAL
26 January 2014 at 09:49
Has Lok pal Bill enacted as yet or not and gazetted if so on which date?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Law
Please tell me issues to put and d solution to this case..
Radha, as an infant was recovered from one of the remote villages of Rajasthan as
one of the survivors of female infanticide by an NGO named Stree Shakti. In Delhi
she was institutionalized, during her adolescent years, she faced ill events which
added to her agony. This cultivated a deep rooted hatred against males of the
Society. This instilled hatred towards marriage and she through Stree Shakti, of
which she became a volunteer, retaliated against the ill-custom of female
infanticide prevailing in the society, especially highlighting the practice in her own
village. She made an example of herself to spread her views against female
infanticide; she also featured in a documentary on the same topic which required
her to visit her village. This created wide awareness amongst the public. The media
hype angered the villagers and in retaliation Radha was warned by the village heads
not to interfere in the activities of the village. Ignoring this warning, Radha
continued to spread her views against female infanticide. One night, during her stay in the village, few villagers including the village heads raped her to teach her a
lesson. The criminal action is being taken by the appropriate authorities. After two
months of the incident, she detected that she is pregnant. Radha decided to carry on
her crusade and to set an example in the society. Radha wanted to give birth to the
child, however due to the circumstances of Radha from her birth, she was
determined to have only a girl child and wanted to avail the right of abortion under
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 if a male fetous was detected.
Therefore she approached a doctor for sex determination. The doctor and many
other medical practitioners having the facility rejected her request. She was advised to approach the appropriate authorities for sanctioning the test. She approached the Central Supervisory Board under Section 4 (3) (v) for usage of pre-natal diagnostic techniques under foregoing special circumstances. The Board dismissed her application citing that she does not fall under the category as specified under
section 4 read with Section 6 of the Pre Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Now she has approached the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 32 to
challenge the constitutionality of the Pre Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 under foregoing these special
circumstances.
Argue on behalf of Radha