Displaying 1 - 10 of 12 in 2 pages
dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 22 April 2015  

Advocate or the court is not concerned with govt revenue but just legal aspects only..see sec 138 r/w 142 NIA is moved on a cheque bounced cheque issuer by the holder of bounced cheque,the same section is not applied on govt when govt cheques bounce, like in agriculturists whose govt cheques bounced since no funds in the banks where the govt has account, why disparity in a democracy? how tolerated sir! see many agriculturists committed suicide latest one at delhi today in kejriwal land bill march talk at jantar mandir! law is always common otherwise that is no law but just some arbitrary action. why advocate is to be concerned or for that matter why the very court!

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 22 April 2015  

Joshi has a right even to move a writ under Art 32 before SC to get redress, after all advocate is a court officer under Advocates Act is it not!

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 22 April 2015  

i would advice mr joshi to move SLP before SC for due consideration as the HC did not view a solid fact and aspect of law, see, sir, when all are equal, why there is a disparity between general category of candidates, and other categories called OBCs, BCs, SCs/STs, ON WHAT principle there is equality and equity in the classification of people, and merit too just discounted when reservation idea is reinforced.

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 22 April 2015  

service means any service public servant is doing service to the master called the government and indeed he is paid salaries for services rendered as per rates and scales prescribed y pay commission but no advocates fee could be prescribed by any pay commission as no client would pay the advocate is the reality and a fact to be reckoned with by judiciary being justice delivering authority is my view.

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 22 April 2015  

unfortunately, the petitioner did not tell the court, that advocates being the court officers they are comparable to public servants without any monthly salary obtained from the exchequer of government is indeed clear and besides no advocate is paid by the client the service tax component which is now about 14 % or so a large chunk which advocate has to pay to the government under head 'service tax',besides when he has to pay about 14% is cut into his normal revenue by fees paid by the client, as client never pays service tax component to the advocate besides, and as such, advocates income is badly affected when the cost of his services to the client generally are indeed very badly affects his income, besides, there is no guarantee advocate could earn like CA/Mgmt consultant or Engineers who are paid very much higher by any corporate and they are basically engaged by corporate only. in the circumstance advocate could be compared to a public servant who draws regular salaries monthly from governments concerned, so he could be compared with public servants sans monthly salary paid as per pay commissions appointed by governments,so if service tax is made applicable to advocates, then naturally every public servant also be made liable to pay service tax then there would be some meaningful equality and equity could be established,after all equality and equity is common among more or less equals only not incomparables, is it not? so service tax might be made applicable on all public servants too is meaningful equity, is my view or had i been on the bench i would have viewed even in the absence of petitioner duly presenting the case being a constitutional court!

Wrote on 15 April 2015  

Are the lawyers exempted from Service Tax or not?

Wrote on 19 March 2015  

Nice Judgment.

Dipakkumar J Shah
Wrote on 07 March 2015  

No end of appeals till you die. U may not get Justice , may be!!!!! Ha Ha Ha.

kishor kr. majumder
Wrote on 05 March 2015  

good judgement

Prof Wg Cdr G Kumar
Wrote on 07 February 2015  

Supreme Court Rules 2013 do not allow a Petitioner in-Person to argue his matter unless he/she has been interviewed by Registrar (Supreme Court) and found fit to assist the Court, and then specifically permitted by a Bench of the Supreme Court. Until he/she is so permitted, his/her matter will not be listed -- hence, the pleadings filed by him/her will also be infructuous. If he/she is not permitted to argue in person AND is also found to meet the criteria laid down by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, only then he/she will be provided an Amicus Curiae. But if he/she cannot meet the said criteria, then he/she shall have to hire the services of an Advocate-on-Record. Compliance of these Rules not only further delays Justice, but also denies Justice to him/her if he/she is not financially in a position to afford a good Lawyer and does not also meet the aforesaid criteria. There is no exemption from the above procedures even for retired Judges and practising Advocates (including those who have left active practice as Advocates-on-Record) if they wish to appear in-person! This reflects adversely upon the drafting skills of those who penned these Rules. Incidentally, Supreme Court Rules are approved by the Full Court, and then assented to by the President of the Republic of India. Then how can such far reaching Amendments to Constitution be left in the hands of the same draftsmen (e.g. the virtual Amendments regarding Appointment, Transfer and Salaries of Judges) WHEREAS such Amendments can only be made if the same are passed by thousands of the Members of Parliament and State Legislatures (Members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and Assemblies/ Councils of half the States in the Union of India)? What about the non-transparent procedure for selection of Judges? One of the Judges (now retired) selected by the ‘Collegium of 5 Senior Most Judges’ had declared a living person (described in the said Order as “an Advocate of this Court”) also as ‘dead’.

You need to be logged in to post comment

IPC Grand Course     |    x