LegallyIndia.com

Hi folks,

Comment (0) Read More...

Comment (5) Read More...

If you have noticed that whenever one sees the usage of the word “Client”, one knows that there just has to be lawyer or an architect involved since no one else in the 'white collar' business game ever seems to refer to anyone as “clients". On a train/plane you are a passenger (unless you are flying Kingfisher), in a hospital you are a patient (unless you are in some super specialty hospital where trust God,you are nothing but a customer), in a class you are a student, in the economy at large you’d be a consumer, in the polity, the common man (but now in the world of gender neutral addressal system, 'the common person').However, the doberman luckily seesm to have successfully avoided the ruccus and is not a  doberperson.(sorry! bad joke!). 
But when it comes to being a “Client”,the only people known to have clients appears to be lawyers, architects and prostitutes, all of whom have to live with the reputation that they are simply out to screw you. Only the prostitute is honest about it.

Comment (6) Read More...

A lawyer issued a legal notice to quit on behalf of his client. He posted it through registered AD and courier. Since he did not receive any AD card, h filed a complaint with the Post office .In the meantime, he sought for the proof of delivery from the courier company. He entrusted his clerk with the responsibility of pursuing the courier company and procure the hard copy of the proof of delivery.

Comment (0) Read More...

The judgment of the Supreme court in Sundaram Finance Ltd v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in   (1999) 2 SCC 479 observed at para 12 thereof that though section 17 gives the arbitral tribunal the power to pass orders, the same cannot be enforced as orders of a court and it is for this reason only that Section 9 gives the court power to pass interim orders during the arbitration proceedings.

Comment (0) Read More...

It is interesting to note that the constitutional validity of section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  was challenged before the Delhi High Court in the matter of The Cooperative Store Limited, New Delhi v. O.P.Dwivedi, P.O.Industrial Tribunal –II & Others, reported in 1988 1 LLJ 135.In the case of Madras –Bangalore Transport Company Vs. The Madras –Bangalore Transport Company Worker's Union and Ors., reported in (1964) II LLJ 614 Kant, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held  that the limited restriction imposed by S.36 in a law sanctioned by Parliament in the exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by the Constitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgment of any fundamental right. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court interpreted the said provision in the case of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen And Management of Keonjhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs.  Their Workmen, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 339.

Comment (2) Read More...

Comment (0) Read More...

 Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be.

Comment (0) Read More...

The consumer awareness in India is still at a nebulous stage. The Consumer Protection Act was legislated in 1986 and consumer disputes redressal forums erected pursuant to the Act. However, the practice and procedure followed in these forums id perhaps not what was intended bythe legislature.

Comment (1) Read More...

According to draft Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS), data compiled by the Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejriwal-led NGO Parivartan as part of an initiative to promote people’s right to access information from government organisations. West Bengal is at the bottom of the heap, scoring just 6% in OPS while Karnataka tops the country in implementing the Right to Information (RTI) Act, scoring 55%..

Comment (3) Read More...

The     High   Court   at  Calcutta, formerly    known  as   the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, was brought into existence by the Letters Patent dated 14^th May, 1862, issued under the High Court's Act, 1861.The High Court of Judicature at Fort William was formally opened on 1^st July, 1862, with Sir Barnes Peacock as its first Chief    Justice.  Appointed   on   2^nd   February, 1863, Justice Sumboo Nath Pandit was the first Indian to assume office as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court, followed by legal luminaries  such as Justice D. N. Mitter, Justice R.C Mitter, Sir Chunder Madhab Ghosh, Sir Gooroodas Banerji, Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee and Justice P.B. Chakravartti, whose judgments are still revered.

Comment (1) Read More...