Supreme Court Has Both Original And Appellate Jurisdiction

Supreme Court has both original and appellate Jurisdiction. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India any person can file a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking to protect his/her fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Any person can directly approach the Supreme Court of India only in the above mentioned situation. All other types of cases which were challenged in a High Court, Special Leave Petition under Article 136 will lie against the High Court Judgement. Once an Appeal or the Special Leave Petition is filed and numbered normally matters are heard for admission within 15 days from the date of numbering. The above said petition should be filed with 60 days from the date of passing of the order by the High Court. If the Supreme Court finds sufficient reasons for filing with a delay, then it is empowered to condone the delay and admit the appeal. If the Court decides to hear the case then it will issue notice to all the parties and list it for a final disposal. If the case requires more time, then the Court posts the matter for final hearing on a non-miscellaneous day.

Short matters are decided finally in the 2nd or third hearing even on a miscellaneous day. The Court normally entertains the petitions which are filed challenging the Final judgments only, but in some cases SLPs are entertained even against the interim orders. The Law Firm is having strongly experienced Central Excise lawyers who all easily handle Appeals and SLP in the Supreme Court of India. Contract related cases in the Supreme Court of India arise out of an order of a Bench of a High Court. There appeals are not statutory appeals and covered by Indian Contract Act, hence the only remedy available is under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. They are again civil Special Leave Petitions and hence necessary to raise questions of law. The limitation to file Special Leave Petitions in contract related matters is 90 days from the date of the order of the High Court.

But if the Supreme Court finds sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, it has the powers to condone the delay. Once the Petition is filed and numbered normally matters are heard for admission within 15 days from the date of numbering of the Special Leave Petition. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, then it issues notice to all the parties in the case and list it for a final disposal. If the case is a long matter with complex questions of fact and law which requires more time, then the Court posts the matter for final hearing on a non miscellaneous day. Short matters which require lesser time for arriving at a decision are disposed off in the 2nd or third hearings, even on a miscellaneous day. The Supreme Court normally entertains the petitions which are filed challenging the Final orders only, but in some cases SLPs are entertained by the Court even against the interim orders. The Legal Firm and its lawyers have handled many contract related matters in the Supreme Court of India.

Hence, in arbitration related appeals, against the High Court orders, a Special Leave Petition Civil can be filed in the Supreme Court of India. Once a SLP is filed and numbered normally matters are heard for admission within 15 days, from the date of numbering. The above said petition should be filed with 60 days from the date of passing of the order by the High Court. If the Supreme Court finds sufficient reasons for filing with a delay, then it is empowered to condone the delay and admit the appeal. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case then it will issue notice to all the parties and list it for a final disposal. If the case requires more time, then the Court may post the matter for final hearing on a non miscellaneous day. Short matters are disposed off in the 2nd or third hearings on the miscellaneous day.

The Court normally entertains the Special Leave petitions which are filed challenging the Final judgments only, but in some cases SLPs are entertained even against the interim orders. The Law Firm and its lawyers have handled thousands of arbitration appeals in the Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court of India can transfer a civil or criminal case pending in a Court in a particular State to another State, in the interest of Justice. Some parties file a Civil case in a court situated in a place which does not have the jurisdiction or to create a difficulty to the opposite party from attending the court. For example a husband filing a case in Mumbai seeking divorce against a wife living in Odisha, whereas both of them got married and lived in a different place. Such a case will surely put the wife in difficulty to attend the case in every hearing.

Finally the case may be allowed Exparte. Supreme Court is empowered to hear and decide two types of Consumer case related Appeals. The Appeal filed under Sec.23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Judgment of the National Consumer Commission, while exercising its original Jurisdiction in hearing a Consumer Complaint filed directly in the National Consumer redressal Commission. Consumer complaints in which claim amount is Rs.1,00,00,000 (One Crore only) or more then the complaint can be filed only in the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – New Delhi. The Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the National Commission, disposing either an Appeal or a revision in which the Judgement of a State Commission was under challenge. The limitation to file Special Leave Petitions in contract related matters is 90 days from the date of the order of the High Court. But if the Supreme Court finds sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, it has the powers to condone the delay.

Once the Petition is filed and numbered normally matters are heard for admission within 15 days from the date of numbering of the Special Leave Petition. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, then it issues notice to all the parties in the case and list it for a final disposal. If the case is a long matter with complex questions of fact and law which requires more time, then the Court posts the matter for final hearing on a non miscellaneous day. Short matters which require lesser time for arriving at a decision are disposed off in the second or third hearings, even on a miscellaneous day. The Supreme Court normally entertains the petitions which are filed challenging the Final orders only, but in some cases SLPs are entertained by the Court even against the interim orders. The Firm and its lawyers have handled many Consumer cases in various Consumer Forums and in the Supreme Court of India.

The appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is governed by the article 136 of the Constitution of India. Labour cases have to be filed in the Supreme Court of India as Special Leave Petitions challenging the High Court orders. Same way, after the order of the tribunal the aggrieved party has to go to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The final orders of the High Court either upholding or reversing the orders of the CAT can be challenged in the Supreme Court again under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by way of a Civil SLP. Once a Civil SLP with a prayer for an interim order is filed and numbered normally matters are heard for admission within 15 days from the date of numbering. The above said petition should be filed with 60 days from the date of passing of the order by the High Court.

If the Court finds sufficient reasons for the delay in filing, then it is empowered to condone the delay and admit the appeal. If the Court decides to hear the case then it will issue notice to all the parties and list it for a final disposal. If the case requires more time, then the Court posts the matter for final hearing on a non miscellaneous day. Short matters are disposed off by the Apex Court in the 2nd or third hearings on the miscellaneous day. The Apex Court normally entertains the petitions which are filed challenging the Final judgments only, but in some cases SLPs are entertained even against the interim orders. The Firm and its lawyers have handled many labour and service appeals in the Supreme Court of India. If the High Court order is in favour of one party, the other party may approach Supreme Court and at the time of admission might get some interim orders. Only after the first hearing if the case is admitted, the notice goes to the other party. But if the party wishes to have a notice about the first hearing itself then it requires to file a caveat in the registry of the Supreme Court of India. In such a case, if any appeal is filed in that matter, the advocate on record who filed the Caveat will be informed by the Registry about the first hearing date also. In that hearing, the party who filed the Caveat can also be represented in the Court. The validity of the caveat is 90 days and hence the caveat needs to be renewed time and again.

The latter Act provided for the storage of telecommunications’ data for later to be used by police and security agencies. The IPA, which took the place of DRIPA, retains the contested provisions of the DRIPA, and in some situations provides for more controversial data processing. ]’. Therefore, the IPA sits at odds with the CJEU’s finding in Tele2 and Watson. In fact, a legal challenge to the IPA in this matter has already been brought before the UK High Court by the UK based civil liberties organisation Liberty. Equally relevant is that Investigatory Powers Tribunal referred the question on the compatibility of the acquisition and use of bulk communications data under s.94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 with EU law to the CJEU. Here, the status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter) and the jurisdiction of the CJEU after Brexit requires further attention. CJEU (Clause 6) after Brexit. ] This statement might be read as a reference to the IPA, or any future law on surveillance practices and the end of the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU.

]. Still, as the ongoing challenge against the standard contractual clause scheme for data transfers under the Data Protection Directive of 1995 shows, neither alternative is immune from a legal challenge before the CJEU. One might ask whether all these will be relevant for the data transfer during the transitional period should there be a transitional period after Brexit. The short answer is: yes, they will be. Other than that, the UK may seek to conclude a transitional agreement as part of the Article 50 negotiations, as indicated in the Prime Minister’s recent Florence speech (discussed here). That agreement will not be immune from the adequacy requirements discussed above because it will have to match the EU standards, and particularly the EU data protection framework and its rules on data transfers. As mentioned above, the UK aims to transpose the Law Enforcement Directive in to UK law with the Data Protection Bill. Yet, as in the case of GDPR, maintaining the data exchange between law enforcement authorities in the UK and in the EU will not be undisputed upon Brexit.

Any obstacle to this data exchange after Brexit has been considered as a gift for criminals and as a threat for public safety. ]. Just like the GDPR, the Data Protection Directive on law enforcement requires an adequate level of data protection standards for data transfers to a third country (Article 36 of the Law Enforcement Directive). So, any future agreement between the EU and the UK on law enforcement information exchange would have to comply with these standards. The UK Government voiced its intention to ‘build on’ the adequacy scheme for the future of data exchange for law enforcement. Still, it was of the opinion that the implementation of the Law Enforcement Directive through the introduction of the Data Protection Bill is enough for the UK to secure a positive adequacy decision. I discussed earlier the scope of the adequacy assessment and the matters that may affect the likelihood of securing such decision. What is the EU’s position on data protection? The UK Government introduced the Data Protection Bill, which seeks to adjust its national laws on data protection with the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive. This development may mean that at least some EU data protection requirements will be implemented in UK law on the day the UK leaves the EU. Still, it should not be read as a solution for the issue of maintaining the UK-EU data transfer after Brexit because the GDPR’s and the Directive’s provisions on third country data transfer will be relevant for such transfer.

The fight over President Donald Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with lawyers in a pending gun rights case asking the justices on Friday to decide whether the action was lawful. Critics have said the Republican president’s Nov. 7 appointment of Whitaker, who now will oversee special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. Jeff Sessions as the chief U.S. Constitution and federal law. Lawyers for Barry Michaels, who filed a lawsuit in Nevada challenging a U.S. Whitaker’s appointment an issue in their pending appeal before the high court because Sessions was named as a defendant in the case. The lawyers told the justices that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be the acting attorney general. Supreme Court advocate Thomas Goldstein, wrote in a court filing. The court is not required to decide one way or another and could simply ignore or reject the motion.

Michaels’ lawyers argued that Rosenstein, the department’s No. 2 official, should have succeeded Sessions under a federal law that vests full authority in the deputy attorney general should the office of attorney general become vacant. Some of the same lawyers behind Friday’s motion also are involved in a similar effort brought before a federal judge on Tuesday. Affordable Care Act health care law. Maryland also argued that Trump violated the so-called Appointments Clause of the Constitution because the job of attorney general is a “principal officer” who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Justice Department on Wednesday defended the legality of Whitaker’s appointment, saying Trump was empowered to give him the job under a 1998 law called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act even though he was not a Senate-confirmed official. Congressional Democrats have voiced concern that Whitaker could undermine or even fire Mueller. Mueller’s investigation has led to criminal charges against a series of former Trump aides and has cast a cloud over Trump’s presidency.

One of the most cherished aspects of the legal profession is its obligation to clients of confidentiality. Almost from time immemorial, confidentiality (legal professional privilege) was drilled into “articled clerks” (as they once were), trainee solicitors (as they now are) and pupil barristers. Is this important principle under increasing attack? Writing in the Law Society Gazette 1st November – Jonathan Goldsmith draws attention to how lawyers are gradually being turned into gatekeepers for information they hold about their clients – see Information demands lay siege to confidentiality. A major breach in the confidentiality of client information came with money laundering legislation which forces lawyers to provide investigators with information. Two cases – (Michaud and Monaco) – on this are currently before the European Court of Human Rights. Goldsmith then draws attention to two sets of recommendations. First, a 2011 report from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development which asks policy makers to guard against “unjustified” use of attorney-client privilege. The report is part of the bank’s stolen asset recovery initiative. Secondly, is the United Nations “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” which requires companies to “know and show” that they are respecting human rights. Goldsmith questions whether firms can “show” without breaching their obligations to clients. In all of this Goldsmith sees clear pattern in which lawyers are no longer viewed as professionals dealing individually with clients within a framework of the rule of law, where everyone is entitled to confidential legal advice. Rather, the lawyer becomes a gatekeeper to secrets which prosecutors wish to access. This is a future to be guarded against. Once lawyers accept his change of role then there will be a flood of demands for access to the information.

Revisiting the history of minimum wage laws will give us a deeper perception of what these laws really stand for. Massachusetts was one of the early American regions where local colonial rules required every family household to work, including the children. This was particularly true if the family unit belonged to the poorer sector of the colony. Yet in 1912, it adopted the first minimum wage standard law based on an old Australian 1890s minimum wage edict. During the age of industrialization, the textile industry was one of the most prominent users of the American labor force, which was divided into gender and age. The men worked as farmhands and laborers, usually in cotton plantations that supplied raw materials for the textile factories. Adolescent females and children manned the mills to operate the power looms and sewing machines. Children typically earned 25 cents a week that went directly to the family coffers.

Labor unions began to organize as working conditions became harsh. The stiffer the competition faced by the textile industry in both local and international markets, the harsher the impact it created in the working conditions of the women and children workers. The introduction of synthetic fabrics placed the cotton industry in a precarious balance as profits plummeted and wage cuts were implemented. This drove the workers to hold labor strikes that fought for the rights of women and children who were overworked and underpaid. Whenever and wherever labor unions created trouble, the textile factory simply closed shop and transferred to a new location where work was badly needed and where labor could even be cheaper. If this was not possible, new workers were hired, comprising mostly immigrants coming from Italy, France, Ireland, and Canada. This all the more intensified union strikes and spurred bloody riots but eventually goaded the Massachusetts government to adopt minimum wage laws.