26 February

Sticky

Suggesting the obvious

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WP(C) NO. 861/2018 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mathews J. Nedumpara And Others PETITIONERS Versus The Supreme Court of India and Others RESPONDENTS TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HUMBLE SUGGESTIONS BY THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: The Audio-Video Recording of Judicial Proceedings is a measure which is very safe and easy to implement, as the Petitioners had directly witnessed the same in a Contempt of Court Proceedings at the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, as Counsels, where it was implemented on mere application of the Contemnor without calling for any suggestions....

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

“Ratio” of the judges 2 and the NJAC cases

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

“RATIO” OF THE JUDGES 2 AND THE NJAC CASES -Mathews J. Nedumpara The Supreme Court in Keshavanada Bharati held that the “basic structure” of the constitution is inviolable though fundamental rights could be violated. In Indira Nehru Gandhi and Minerva Mills it was held that from 24.04.1973, the validity of a statute has to be tested on the Basic Structure. Independence of Judiciary is one of the Basic features of the constitution. The independence of the judiciary is not about the independent discharge of the functions of a judge subsequent to his appointment but is all about the very appointment, i.e., who...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Recall Application of order and Notice To J.Karnan(08.02.2017)(FIled)

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2017 (DIARY NO.___________/2017) IN SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017 Justice C.S. Karnan … Applicant/ Alleged Contemnor IN THE MATTER OF Supreme Court of India on its own motion … Suo Moto Versus Justice C.S. Karnan … Original Alleged Contemnor/Respondent APPLICATION SEEKING RECALL OF ORDERS DATED 08/02/2107 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT CULMINATING IN THE ORDER DATED 9TH MAY, 2017 CONVICTING THE APPLICANT FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS, PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Voice of the people

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

Flat No. 1, 3rd Floor, Mitra Kunj, 16, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400 026. 18th July, 2019 1) Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. 2) Hon'ble Shri Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Mumbai-400 032. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS: 1. We, common people, activists and lawyers, are constrained to address Your Lordships since despite it being repeatedly brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the most condemnable manner in which the power of contempt of Court is...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Print_ WP before Delhi HC – J.C.S.Karnan_(18.05.2017)

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____OF 2017 BETWEEN Justice C.S.Karnan … PETITIONER Versus The Supreme Court of India through its Registrar General. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS [FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE] FILED BY (Mathews J.Nedumpara) (A.C.Philip) & (M.Malaviya) Advocates for the Petitioner 304, 3rd Floor, Hari Chambers, Near. Old Customs House, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. (PH;022-22626634,Mobile: , 09820535428, & 09769110823) Filed on :__.05.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____ OF 2017 BETWEEN Justice C.S.Karnan … PETITIONER Versus The Supreme Court of India through its Registrar General. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS I N D E X Sl. No. Particulars Page No Listing Proforma INDEX Court Fees Urgent Application Notice of Motion Memo of Parties Synopsis and List...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

In the Bombay City Civil Court

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

SUIT NO.________ OF 2018 Mathews J. Nedumpara, aged 59, Advocate, residing at 12-F, Harbour Heights, A Wing, 12th Floor, Sassoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. Plaintiff Versus Hon'ble Shri Justice S.J. Kathawalla, Judge, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Mumbai-400 032. Defendant SUIT UNDER SECTION 26 ORDER 1 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908. THE PLAINTIFF ABOVENAMED STATES AS FOLLOWS:- 1. The Plaintiff is a citizen of India. He is a lawyer by profession having enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala in the year 1984 and practicing since then in various Courts and Tribunals in the country and, in particular, in the High Court of Judicature at...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

MJN_ Covering Letter to Secretary General

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA Advocate NEDUMPARA & NEDUMPARA Law Firm 304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 58-64, S.B.S. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 & 210, PrasannaVihar Apartments, Near High Court, Cochin, Kerala-682 031 Ph: +91 98205 35428(M), 02222626634, 04842368737, 02222626432,01122146145 E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com To Ld.Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-1. Sub: Filing of: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017 IN SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017 (Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017) Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner IN THE MATTER OF: Supreme Court of India on its own motion … Suo Moto Versus Justice C.S. Karnan … Original Alleged Contemnor/Respondent Sir, Nowhere in the...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency & Reforms

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

Mobile: +91 98205 35428 E. Mail: nationallawyerscampaign@gmail.com 3rd December, 2018 To Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph , Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. OPEN LETTER MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP: Todays Times of India, on its front page, carried an article by Mr. Dhananjay Mohapatra, one of the illustrious legal reporters of the country, under the caption We felt the then CJI was remote-controlled: Joseph. Within the said main heading, there was a sub-heading titled Ex Supreme Court Judge says minority tag hinders careers. Under the said caption Your Lordship is reported to have said the minority tag is a hindrance to career progression of members of...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Justice Karnans application for Remission to H.E.The President of India(A4)

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA Advocate 304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 58-64, S.B.S. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Ph: +91 98205 35428(M), 02222626634, 04842368737, 02222626432,01122146145 E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com To His Excellency Shri. Ram Nath Kovind, President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, Raisina Hill, New Delhi,110 004. Sub. : Memorandum/Representation under Article 72 of the Constitution of India by Justice C.S. Karnan seeking remission of his sentence of six months imposed on him by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, preferred through his counsels, Shri Mathews J.Nedumpara, B.K.Adhikari, A.C.Philip and C.J.Joveson Ref. : 1. The memorandum dated 17.05.2017, under article 72 of the Constitution by Hon'ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, Judge, High Court of Judicature...

26 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Deepasthambham Mahascharyam Namukkum Kittanam Panam

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles

'-Mathews J.Nedumpara The Supreme Court in Keshavanada Bharati held that the “basic structure” of the constitution is inviolable though fundamental rights could be violated. In Indira Nehru Gandhi and Minerva Mills it was held that from 24.04.1973, the validity of a statute has to be tested on the Basic Structure. Independence of Judiciary is one of the Basic features of the constitution. The independence of the judiciary is not about the independent discharge of the functions of a judge subsequent to his appointment but is all about the very appointment, i.e., who appoints. Who appoints the judges is the core of...

Disclaimer: