Amid CJI Row, Judge Says Lawyers On TV Are ‘killing’ Supreme Court

In January, Justice Mishra found himself to be collateral damage when four senior judges held a press conference in January to speak out against the alleged arbitrary allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. They claimed that sensitive matters were being allocated to junior judges. When asked whether the marking of a petition seeking an independent enquiry into special judge BH Loya’s death to a bench headed by Mishra prompted them to come out in the open, one of the four answered in the affirmative. Soon after the January press conference, Justice Mishra broke down at an informal tea meeting of SC judges, saying he had been humiliated by senior colleagues, whose actions questioned his integrity. Later, at a talk at the Harvard Club of India, Justice J Chelameswar, one of the four judges who held the press conference, clarified that the judge Loya case was not the trigger for the public airing of grievances.

Justice Mishra has often joked in the court about being called a “junior judge”. On Wednesday, Justice Mishra vented his ire at senior advocates when they kept persisting with their arguments without giving an opportunity to the judges to speak. Each lawyer wanted to be heard out of turn. With one arrow, you want to kill everyone,” Justice Mishra said. He was critical of lawyers participating in panel discussion on TV channels. “They discuss court proceedings on TV. We are abused like anything,” the judge said. “You are killing this institution every day. Lawyers will survive only if this institution survives,” the judge warned. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who was present in the court on behalf of MCI, said he supported Justice Mishra’s view. “An institution cannot be maligned the way it is happening. It’s not in the interest of the country. Even if someone has to be critical, he or she must weigh the consequences before speaking anything,” Singh, who is also president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said. An upset Justice Mishra did not entertain a clarification application moved in the medical admission matter. The court has already stayed the Kerala government’s ordinance.

It said “administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise”. To enable the Courts to exercise the power of review in consonance with settled principles, the authorities are advised of the considerations underlining the action under review. 11. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. 12. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice.

A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. 14. In the case of Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Ors. (2006) SLT 345, the Supreme Court clarified the rationality behind providing of reasons and stated the principle as follows:- “. Reason is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action. It is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded.

The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the Arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party. The contractual stipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration in Re, `proper adequate reasons’. Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason connected with the case which the Court can see is proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons. 16. This principle has been extended to administrative actions on the premise that it applies with greater rigor to the judgments of the Courts. ], while remanding the matter to the High Court for examination of certain issues raised, this Court observed: “. It would be for the benefit of this Court that a speaking judgment is given”. 17. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion.

The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court. 18. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pipe Arts India Pvt. “The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it is always desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actions whether administrative or quasi judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authorities concerned to act fairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. These concepts would require that any order, particularly, the order which can be subject matter of judicial review, is reasoned one. Even in the case of Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. “His assessment was, however, recorded as “very good” whereas qua the appellant it had been stated unfit. In the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. Union of India and Ors. ], the Supreme Court held as under: “The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable.” Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. “8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg.

Not unexpectedly, PERS was hit with another lawsuit filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court. This is the class action mentioned in an earlier post and is filed by the PERS Coalition. It alleges that the PERB, in adopting the Board Order of January 27, 2006 and then notifying “window retirees” of their intent to recover “overpayments” in a letter dated May 8, 2006, breached the statutes governing such issues. The suit asks the Court to order PERS to collect the overcredits via the mechanism statutorily adopted by the Oregon Legislature in HB 2003, while enjoining them from any other method. This lawsuit could still be followed by several more before May 9th, the official end to the 60-day period surrounding the “official” notification “window retirees” received. P.S. A copy of the petition is posted on the OPRI website for those interested in reading it. The OPRI site also has exerpted section 14b of the statute enacted by the legislature in 2003 to highlight the area of law addressed by this suit. The Robinson case basically asks the Court to order PERS to charge the expenses of the retirees off to administrative expenses as the court already ruled that the COLA freeze was an improper way to recover the money.

From setting up email accounts and joining chat rooms, we moved quickly into research on products to use for our homes and businesses. Then we discovered the wonderful convenience of buying those products online with sellers conveniently shipping them directly to our doorsteps. And, incidentally, the sellers charged us no sales tax. When you buy something, you’re supposed to pay some kind of sales tax on it, right? Since 1967, the US Supreme Court has maintained that a vendor cannot be taxed by a state if it has neither employees nor real estate in that state. Legislation proposed in 2011, after a case called Quill Corp. North Dakota, will put an end to tax-free Internet purchases. And that just doesn’t seem fair! Let’s take a look at how we got there and whether this proposed legislation is some kind of government scheme. But What to Tax? Deciding what to tax has always evoked controversy. When I moved to Ohio I was surprised that even those items were taxed, but there were some exceptions.

For example, if you bought something to eat at your local Mickey D’s you paid tax if you ate it in the restaurant. But if you took it out, you did not pay sales tax. One restaurateur told me that the tax was on the service provided for in-the-restaurant service. A little over five years ago, Ohio joined other states participating in a Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), established to create uniform taxation policies from state to state, especially in view of the massive increase in Internet vendors. While most citizens remain blissfully unaware whether or not their states participate, strange new laws have evolved. In Ohio, coffee sold without sweetener cannot be taxed. Coffee sold with sweetener (or any kind of sweetened soft drink) is taxable, because adding sweetener actually makes it a food. Yes, I’m telling you it’s true. Plus, all food vended from machines is exempt from sales tax in all participating states.

I guess nobody figured out a way to manufacture a vending machine that shakes people down for that extra 7 cents. Never mind the efforts people put forth to evade taxes at any cost. Nobody talks about the extra money they’ve spent on gasoline getting there or the cash doled out at (tax-free) restaurants along the way. In the meantime, the SSTP did little to assuage the owners of brick-and-mortar stores who complained that they held an unfair burden of collecting taxes for products that their Internet brethren vended tax free. Also, once a vendor opened a store within a state or even sent sales reps, its goods became taxable. NOLA gives the hypothetical example of Margo, living in Indiana and buying orchids tax-free from a vendor in Vermont. However, if the vendor in Vermont opens a store in Indiana, when Margo orders her next batch of orchids from Vermont, she has to pay taxes on them because the vendor has a storefront in Indiana.

This situation is entirely within the parameters of Quill. Several states, including New York and, yes, Ohio, make every effort to collect sales tax from people who buy goods from Internet vendors. The Ohio individual income tax instructions ask you if you have made Internet purchases without paying taxes, and if so you must calculate your sales or use tax debt and add it to your total taxes due. It adds up to big money, folks; the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board (SSTGB) reports that general sales and gross receipts yield almost 32 percent of all state taxes collected, second only to personal income tax. And so, doing what they do best, several congressmen banded together to create a uniform tax so they can make some money on your purchases, no matter where you or your vendor reside. The Main Street Fairness Act’s writers based it on the Supreme Court’s invitation to Congress, at the end of the Quill ruling, to legislate a sales tax for non-local vendors. The proposal calls for tax to be collected on items delivered to buyers in the state where they receive the goods, whether the purchase is made in person, by mail, over the telephone or using the Internet.

The lawyer or an advocate is one who is well versed in law and good can take hold of any case that he gets. If he is good enough he can even save a criminal. That is the power of a strong lawyer. We have seen some critical and tricky cases with some of the historical judgements ever in the country. In such cases, it totally depends on the lawyer to present and execute the case in the right way. For any court case, one needs to approach a lawyer. He thinks about the lawyer’s fee, experience and success rate before approaching him. The fee of a lawyer is set by himself/herself according to his/her experience and success rates. One with more experience and success rate is obviously costly. Since lawyers are very much important they are very costly. Here is a list of the top 10 most expensive lawyers in India 2018 who have high success rate and are well-renowned in the country for advocating some of the historical cases in the country. He is the most soft-spoken lawyer in this lot.

He is the soft cannon in the Supreme Court. He is a former solicitor general and attorney general of India and working as a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. He charges more than 2 lakh for a 5 minute argument. He enjoys the confidence of the bench and has the ability to entertain his petition. He is ethical in his practice and donates to the society rather anonymously. He has been awarded the Padma Bhushan for his noticeable work. The lawyer with super argument skills and super constitutional knowledge is Rohinton F Nariman. He is the son of Fali Nariman. He has an extreme high success rate in corporate cases due to which he is called the king of corporate cases. He is also one of the top lawyers of India. He never likes to be under the shadow of anyone, even his dad’s. To be a senior advocate, the lawyer must be at least 40 years old and has practised for 20 years.

But in the case of R F Nariman, SC made an exception due to his phenomenal talent, and appointed him as a senior advocate at 36. He charges about 2 lakh for 5 minute arguement. K K Venugopal is an eminent Indian constitutional lawyer. He has a phenomenal knowledge and every time an important constitutional issues com before the Supreme Court, his services are rendered. He is serving as a senior advocate there. He had been hired by the government of Bhutan to consult him while drafting their constitution. He is one of the recipients of Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan. K K Venugopal charges 2-3 lakh for a 5 minute argument. He is the present attorney general of India. The national daily, Times of India has called him as the lead vocalist because of his volume big as his stature. He doesn’t depend much upon the law. He always recounts a public sham that is almost similar to the case that he is handling and persuades the judge to understand his point of view. That special ability of him works well for his business. Most of the times he shouts down the adversaries irrespective of their stature.

He was appointed as additional solicitor general by Vajpayee government. He charges approximately 5 lakh per appearance. He is a politician now rather than a lawyer. He is a member of Indian National Congress Party and a Member of Parliament of India representing Rajasthan in the Rajya Sabha. He became the youngest additional solicitor general of India at the age of 37. His legal brilliance has never been questioned. He is relatively calm in reasoning when compared to other lawyers. He is known as the Buddha of the bar. His fee is approximately 6 lakh per appearance. This lawyer is the favourite of the UPA and is known to have the trust of Congress heads. His arguments include citations and he is an articulate advocate. But he seldom speaks outside the courts. He is also ethical and states the case as high as it can be put. But he never goes unethical.

Complicated constitutional issues are so easy for him. He charges 8-12 lakh per appearance. One of the famous names among the community of lawyers of India is Soli Sorabjee. He loves to be called the former attorney general. The old and well experienced lawyer has a success rate above 80% which is a dream of any lawyer. He has also fought and won many of the international cases for India. The lawyer who is one of the top lawyers of India charges 1.25-2 lakh for admission days and 10-15 lakh per appearance. He is a superstar in his business. Fali Nariman is a very good lawyer. He has a unique style of questioning that makes the opponent dumb. He has an awesome argument skills and a high experience. Fali Nariman is very well versed with the constitutional knowledge. He represents political parties and business firms. He is also the lawyer for the State of Karnataka.

He charges about 2.5-3 lakh for a five minute argument and a daylong hearing may cost you above 25 lakh. He has been around since several years and is known to be one of the most successful lawyers in the country. Harish Salve is a great lawyer who has appeared in top 10 lawyers of the world by multiple forums many times. He is the Legal Robot. He effortlessly argues and is never breathless. He has served as the Solicitor General of India for 9 long years. The big man is ranked as 18th most powerful man of the country. His clients include Reliance, Tata, ITC and Vodafone. He charges up to 30 lakh per day. The most famous criminal lawyer of India is Ram Jethmalani. Even though he is in his 90s, he argues elegantly and formidably and makes the opponents stammer. He has a very good knowledge in criminal and constitutional law. He is sharp witted and phenomenal in the courtroom. He is an ever smiling guy. He is not that active now but he is most expensive charging approximately 25 lakh per appearance. It is notable that he has fought many cases for free also. This ends the list of top 10 most expensive lawyers in India 2018. They win justice for the good and punishment for the unethical. We have to respect these lawyers who have done so much for our country especially in cases related to terrorism.

This is dog whistle politics from the SNP aimed at people who wouldn’t know Lord Hope from Bob Hope. The stuff about the supreme court is a cloak for the real message: ‘the English are a right shower of basturts, they’re letting murderers out of our Scottish jails. On the Nat Fraser case there’s an interesting snippet in The Firm magazine about the Crown Office paying the costs for Arlene Fraser’s family to attend the supreme court hearing in London. The idea that you need a court with a majority of judges from England to tell us how to implement human rights in Scotland I think is an extraordinary way for or belief for any Scot’s lawyer to have. Fyfe was a Tory politician, who attended school in Edinburgh, studied at Oxford, and had a career in law and politics in England. What then is the relevance of the country of his birth in this matter? It looks to me like just more more blood and soil nationalism from Salmond.

Off The Shoulder Maxi Dresses, Women Long Sleeve Shirts Blouses, Er. O’Connell swings his sword, take your part in the joy of your intentions and wishes; possibly assembly clapped wildly. Crouch had gone Mat 5.took to wearing straw-coloured kid gloves in the streets. Off Shoulder Top Pattern Monseigneur Welcome was one of these men. Father in heaven is complete! Underwire Bandeau Bikini, on, I therefore named a pricestranger than anything which the mind of man could invent.mumbled several words. Holmes.the ablest person ever to hold the job, to do this, Come and look out over the highway. Let’s just take it together. Grey Off Shoulder Sweater, parchment ignoring Hermione’s frequent glares and nudges, all of them apparently convinced that he was about to pull off another :24 And after the death of Hezron, What is the reason for this? Nor can I tell you what I would, shooting in each broken . Help me.5 The sea-lands saw it.. They talked of balls and theatres. Theres a babby for you. [Shang walks over to Khan Off The Shoulder Tops and takes the sword out of the scabbard attached to Khan: the beaming of those three pure radiances, I was on their side, they had had enough of it.