The Supreme Court Heard The Appeal In June 2018

FIR stands for first information report. It is a document providing the basic information that a cognizable offense has been committed. We must know that FIR is not a conclusive proof that a person has committed an offense. FIR is the starting point of the investigation in a particular offense. What is the law on FIR? Is a police officer duty bound to lodge FIR in every case? The police officer is duty bound to lodge FIR in every cognizable case. And if a police officer gets a complaint from an aggrieved person about the cognizable offense, he must lodge a FIR. And if a police officer refuses to do so, one must approach the SP of the concerned area that a police officer has refused to lodge FIR. Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible. A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

Ramesh Kumari vs State (N.C.T. Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors. H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The controversy in this appeal is confined to the non-registration of the case by the police pursuant to a complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is stated that the appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was granted by the High Court protecting the possession of the appellant on 14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order dated 10.9.1997, in the presence of the other side. However, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 broke open the lock and removed various articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the case. The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable offence has been filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer (SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. However, no case was registered by the concerned SHO.

Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the Police Commissioner, without any result. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Undisputedly, in the present case no case was registerd pursuant to the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant is also pending disposal before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the respondent that the non-disposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-prosecution by the appellant. In this casee, admittedly, the complaint ws filed against the Police Officer. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation the interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs the CBI to register the case and investigate the mater. We also request the Delhi High Court to expedite the disposal of Contempt Petition CCP 307/1997 in any event not later than three months from today for which parties shall give co-operation. The Registry shall despatch copies of this order to the CBI and Delhi High Court forthwith.

This, argues Burns, contradicts a fundamental principle of American democracy-that the people decide. More than just a philosophical crisis, this paradigm has historically produced disastrous real world consequences, according to Burns. These are not isolated travesties. Burns argues that with the exception of the Warren Court, which fought for civil rights such as Miranda, the judiciary has historically been on the wrong side of history, siding with slave owners and corporate interests. Most of the great presidents, such as Jackson, Lincoln, TR and FDR, spoke out against and/or took measures to curb the court. Jackson infamously dared the court to enforce its ruling in favor of the Cherokees and vetoed rechartering the Bank of the United States, flouting at Marshall’s McCulloch decision. Lincoln marginalized Justice Taney by preserving the Union, even though Taney thought the South had the right to secede. TR described Supreme Court justices as “a menace to the welfare of the Nation” (122). And FDR successfully pressured the court to stop obstructing the New Deal, though it may have been a pyrrhic victory.

Burns concludes with a dire warning about a coming crisis spearheaded by the Bush administration’s hard right push. In that vein, what I found most fascinating is Burns’ account of the historical role of the Republican Party. I always love to say that history is worth learning because it’s shocking. More than just the party of Lincoln that emancipated the slaves, the Republicans tirelessly fought to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which made all native-born Americans full citizens, and they passed the fourteenth amendment. In those days, it was the Democrats who obstructed progress. Such a scenario is difficult to fathom now, considering how dramatically the Republicans party has disgraced itself and this country. In so many ways they shame the legacy of Lincoln with their racist agendas, whether it be calling for rewriting the fourteenth amendment or legally authorizing racial profiling or opposing the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. Just as the Republicans would better serve America if they returned to their original noble ideals, the Supreme Court should likewise be restored to its initial purpose.

This post looks at some of the issues in Northern Ireland. The post-Brexit border question remains unresolved. Considerable concern exists over the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland executive and Assembly both of which are key elements in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The post also looks at some criminal justice questions including the continuation of non jury trial in some situations. The question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland continues to be unresolved in Brexit negotiations. Post-Brexit there will be a land border between Northern Ireland (non-EU) and Ireland (EU member State). The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) of 1998 was a major achievement and brought an end to 30 years of terrible violence – referred to as “The Troubles” – BBC History. No sensible individual would wish to see a return to those dark days during which some 3600 people were killed and thousands more injured.

The GFA contained various “strands” each of which has to be taken as a vital component of the peace settlement. There was a return to a representative Northern Ireland Assembly but this has been suspended since early 2017 following a breakdown of power sharing arrangements. The breakdown occurred over the so-called “Cash for Ash” affair which is now the subject of the Renewable Heat Incentive public inquiry. Efforts to re-establish the Assembly have, so far, been unsuccessful. For an update as at 6 September 2018 see HERE. The breakdown in power-sharing has led to some important legislation by the UK Parliament. Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Act 2018 – confers power on the Secretary of State to determine salaries and other benefits for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of periods when there is no Executive. A further Bill before Parliament is the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill which is the subject of a House of Lords Constitution Committee Report. Governing Northern Ireland without an Executive: Quick fix of Constitutional Minefield? ] NIQB 121. Mr Hutchings challenged the decision of the DPP of Northern Ireland to order a non jury trial but the decision was upheld. In July 2018 the Supreme Court granted permission for an appeal. The non jury trial system often referred to as “Diplock Courts” were a form of non-jury trial for individuals charged with certain “scheduled offences”. Finally, judgment of the Supreme Court is awaited in Geraldine Finucane’s application. S. Tierney, ‘Governing Northern Ireland without an Executive: Quick Fix or Constitutional Minefield?

What do I do if I have a complaint against a lawyer? It’s always a good idea to try to work things out with your lawyer informally. If that doesn’t work, you may file a grievance with the Disciplinary Commission. A grievance must be in writing on our form. What complaints does the Disciplinary Commission handle? We review any complaint against a lawyer. All lawyers must follow written standards for the ethical practice of law. The Disciplinary Commission enforces these rules. Matters that do not involve substantial claims of misconduct or that involve disputes over the amount of fees, unless the fees are clearly unreasonable, are not handled through the lawyer discipline system. What are some examples of rule violations for which lawyers may be disciplined? Not promptly giving you money that your lawyer has collected on your behalf or not providing a complete, written accounting for that money. Unreasonably failing to respond to your requests for information, tell you about court dates, or appear in court. Being dishonest with you, a third party or a court, or advising you to lie.

Improperly representing conflicting interests. Settling a case without your permission. Failing to return your papers upon request at the end of your case, provided you have paid fees that are due. Who may file a grievance against a lawyer? Anyone. Grievances are usually filed by the lawyer’s clients, but they are also received from other lawyers, judges, or even opposing parties. Does my lawyer still represent me after I file a grievance? Yes, unless something is done to change the relationship. If you wish to end the representation, you must let your lawyer know that directly. Also, your lawyer may believe that he or she cannot adequately represent you after you file a grievance and may withdraw from representing you. May I withdraw my grievance after I have filed it? No. However, you should tell us if you have worked out your problems with your lawyer. That may have a bearing on how the matter is handled. It is not appropriate for the lawyer to give you anything of value or put pressure on you to ask that your grievance be withdrawn. Is the Disciplinary Commission controlled by a bar association? No. The Disciplinary Commission is an agency of the Indiana Supreme Court. Bar associations in Indiana are voluntary organizations of lawyers with no control over lawyer discipline. Sometimes local bar association committees assist the Commission with investigations, but they have no say in the outcome of a case. Do tax dollars go to fund the Disciplinary Commission? No. Lawyers pay an annual licensing fee to fund the work of the Disciplinary Commission.

Can you sue a Lawyer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986? India is known as the fastest developing economy in today’s world. It is known as one of the best marketplaces to invest in because of the population boom in the country. Various multinational companies have been established in India, due to which the production of goods and services have also increased. It is known to everyone that every business has its primary motive to maximize its profit. Sometimes these businesses use unfair trade practices for the maximization of their profits which often leads to the exploitation of the consumer. Best lawyers in India are often approached to know about the remedies available against faulty services and goods. To prevent the exploitation of the innocent consumers the Parliament of India enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Act provided Effective, inexpensive and speedy remedies to the aggrieved consumers. The Act is applicable to the goods as well as the services availed by the Consumers. 7. Provide compensation to the aggrieved party.

As this act applies to the Goods as well as the Services availed by the Consumers, so the Consumer can get remedies for the latent defects in the goods as well as deficiency in the services. To avail, the protection guaranteed under the Act one must fall within the definition if a consumer as stated under the Act. Who is a consumer? As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer is a person who uses the particular goods and services for his own private use, and commercial undertaking purchasing of any goods is not cover under the ambit of the Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a very wide scope and it covers all forms of goods sold and services hired. However, it is important to note that for free services protection under the Consumer Protection Act is not provided. Nowadays legal services are known as most availed services. A lawyer is considered to play a vital role in delivery of justice because, without a lawyer, a person cannot fight his legal matters. Sometimes a person is not satisfied with the lawyer, which leads to a question before the Courts that whether Lawyers comes under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.

This post is the second in a series on what is, to me, the fascinating subject of English land law though it is, all too often, a subject detested by law students! The principal problem seems to be that the subject cannot be entirely divorced from its historical development. The first post in the series looked at Estates and Tenure. This post considers three matters: (1) the types of fee simple which can arise; (2) settlements of land and (3) co-ownership. There are many twists and turns in the law and a considerable number of practical pitfalls. This post looks at these matters in outline only. Types of fee simple – the fee simple absolute is the type of fee simple most often encountered. After 1925, the only possible legal estates in land are the fee simple absolute in possession and a term of years absolute. See Law of Property Act 1925 s.1. Determinable fee simple and (b) Fee simple upon condition.

These cannot be legal estates and so must exist, in equity, behind a trust. A determinable fee simple is a fee simple which will automatically end if some specified but uncertain event occurs. For example, a fee simple absolute owner (A) conveys land to B for as long as St. Paul’s Cathedral shall stand. A fee simple on condition arises where land is transferred but a condition is attached which could end the estate. For example, A transfers land to B on condition that he continues to practise as a barrister. It is the wording which decides which form exists but different consequences arise. These types of fee simple may now exist only as beneficial interests behind a trust. They are not encountered very often in practice. Settlements – The word “settlement” is used for an arrangement whereby property (land or other property) is given to particular persons in succession.

Historically, this was a natural desire in those who had acquired land and wealth and complex settlements were developed as well as a practice of resettling the land during each generation. However, after the Settled Land Act 1882, the idea of keeping land in a family was effectively gone for ever. This was because the Act enabled to so-called “Tenant for Life” to deal with the land (including a power of sale) during his lifetime. Historically, settlements came to be created either as Strict Settlements or as Trusts for Sale. The Strict Settlement was subject to the complex Settled Land Act 1925 which need not detain us further here. In modern times, mainly for tax reasons, strict settlements were rarely created but, as mentioned above, could arise under badly-drafted home made wills. Whatever could be achieved by a strict settlement subject to the Settled Land Act 1925 could also have been achieved by using a trust for sale. This required the land to be transferred to trustees on trust for sale for the beneficiaries who could, of course, be the same persons as the trustees.