LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More





 11 Replies

ghansham das (self employed engineer)     17 October 2010

Thanks Mr janadan Reddy, fr judgement on supreme courts.

pls forward me the same. thanks once again. as unanable to open it.



ghansham das (self employed engineer)     18 October 2010

Supreme court Admitted

the hardcore fact cheque bouncing case are business transactions, filed by common people, meant for speedy judgments, directives are framed , Dividing the faith, believe with trust in each others transactions, quashing the rights in 226/227, itself,

  why High courts comes in , intervene, and stay will the High court are liable for the compensations and penalty, harassment cost,etc, or just its time pass for judiciary system to supress the rights of compalinats, compalianant thro' system, in to,

Dividing the govt, dept, servants,leaders,etc,  out of facts,since no transaction by cheques by these , as there is no case from there end. hence the cases for general public is pending, more then 38 lacs, involving many thousands crores, ?? whos is responsibility, for inefficiency? you get more bussy self applications?

The High courts are giving careless, neglegence partially orders, is can be proved, who will take the responsibility.???

Let this reach to supreme court?

Let the Honest court should say on affidavit, as they are honest for people of the country, to  public,?

I will quote next.




DEEPAK ASSOCIATES (08010117611)     18 October 2010

Boss the judges are melord, there is no law for judges or accountibility, say only melord melord


Read Parkinson's Law if you have not read it. Northcote Parkinson sounds full of humor but its camouflaged so much that tonnes of grey matter is required to understand this famous writer,historian and so on ....

madhu mittal (director)     20 October 2010

Hoping a day in our India, when our courts in stead of showing undue sympathy towards convicted person, will deliver the judgements so that the convicted person and like minded person will have a fear psyche rather than the victim. Not only cases are dragged for years, but even after conviction, proper punishment is not given, so the victim and his relatives feel cheated in our judicial system, it may be decision of hon. Supreme court in Matto case or decisions of cased u/s 138 N I Act. In Our courts’ decision, there may be a lot of good things in principle, but in hard realty even after conviction, the convicted remain in profit in terms of money and he is rarely punished with jail terms  even though the parliament found one year imprisonment inadequate, enhanced it to two years. Supreme Court viewing  that the cases u/s 138 N I Act, are choking our judicial system.  But everyone related to justice system has to think how to imagine to reduce the cases u/s 138 when the convicted persons are beneficiary, and he is not forced to compensate the victim fully in spite of section 30,80 and 117 of N I Act and 357 of crpc and the decision like MANU/KA/0358/2002 and MANU/JH/0647/2007 and MANU/GJ/0012/1994 are rarely implemented.

Attached File : 16 16 smt pallavi vs shri raj kamal 05 12 2007 jhrhc .doc downloaded: 314 times


The so called National Human Rights Commission was setup to avoid Amnesty Internationall's constant pestering on Human Rights violations in India. E.g very recent visit[18/10/2010] Public stripping of a woman naked on Patna Streets won laurels for all politicians and Nitish Kumar was called the best administrator in Bihar's history and Emperor Nero played on the flute/Harp while Rome burned. I hope you get who's Emperor Nero out here in India---Dus numbri! National Hush Up ,Rip-off Criminal org that's what NHRC is.



R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     22 August 2011

We provide extensive help mainly to honest accused. NI138/139 is quite painful for the accused if not handled properly. This is a kind of financial TADA and honest accused although has to pass through the trial once process is initiated still can save himself if properly defended. All the stages including reply to the notice is very important and can twist the case. Contact us with full details for help at advocate.dma@gmail.com for further assistance

V R SHROFF (Sr. ADVOCATE Bombay High Court Mob: 9892432152)     25 May 2012

thanks for lots of judgements on 138 Mr. Reddy. 

ghansham das (self employed engineer)     09 June 2012

The Judiciary has two items

1- No hearing aids.

2- No Visulaiinsg


Pain for others are not in the dictionary pls.

Nayan Medhi (RD)     10 June 2012

Thanks for sharing...

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register