To declare that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is unconstitutional and void, or at least Sections 2(c)(i), 14, 16 and 17(5) thereof

It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that to institute a legal proceeding seeking a declaratory remedy or for enforcement of the same, no cause of action needs to exist. The Petitioner, who is a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala in 1984 and practicing since then, is leading a National Campaign which has as its prime objectives the following:- Advertisement of vacancies of Judges of the higher judiciary, invitation of applications and references , open and transparent selection and appointment, instead of the current system of appointment by invitation where only the elite and super elite...

14 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. V. Gangapurwala The Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Petitions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2017 (Against the final impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017 along with Writ petitions (Civil) no. 59 of 2018, 975 of 2022 & 1132 of 2022) IN THE MATTER OF: Mathews J. Nedumpara & anr. … Review Petitioners v. Association for Democratic Reforms and ors. … Respondent/Original Petitioners WITH I.A. NO. OF 2024 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND I.A. NO. OF 2024 APPLICATION FOR HEARING OF REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT PAPER BOOK (FOR...

14 July

0 Comments

Sticky

In the 10yr period between 2011 to 2020

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Petitions

Mathews J Nedumpara 98205 35428 In the 10yr period between 2011 to 2020 a)Review petitions (civil) dismissed- 19710 Allowed- 92 b) Review Petitions (Crl) Dismissed- 6087 Allowed- 48 c) Curative petitions (civil) Dismissed- 2155 Allowed- 0 d) Curative petitions (Crl) Dismissed- 620 Allowed- 3 So far as curative petitions go, I am not concerned. The curative jurisprudence itself is against the constitution, a judicial legislation, which no court has the power to do. I consider this mechanism to be in ignorance of the elementary jurisprudence. The court failed to comprehend the distinction between res judicata and stare decisis and mistook one for the other, which would be evident anyone who reads Hurra v. Hurra, by...

14 July

0 Comments

Sticky

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DECLARATORY AND OTHER REMEDIES

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Blogs/Articles, Petitions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___ OF 2024 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) IN THE MATTER OF: SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS. ….PETITIONERS VERSUS THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND ORS.…RESPONDENTS PAPER BOOK (KINDLY SEE INDEX INSIDE) MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 9 ORS PARTIES - IN - PERSON 9820535428/ 9920477447 /9447165650 INDEX SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES 1. Listing Performa 2. Synopsis & List of Dates 3. Writ Petition with Affidavit. 4. Appendix Relevant portion of the constitution of India Art. 14, 19 and 21. 5. ANNEXURE P-1 A copy of letter dated 24.03.2015 addressed to the President, Vice-president, Prime Minister, Speaker and the Law Minister, seeking...

28 October

0 Comments

Sticky

BEFORE THE HONOROUBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Posted by Mathews J Nedumpara

in Petitions

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.A. No. of 2024 (Against the order dated 23-10-2024 of this Honourable Court in IA No.1/2024 in WP(Civil) No. 30885/2024) M/s. SARK Spice Produce Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. : Appellants/Applicants/Petitioners V/s Reserve Bank of India & Ors. : Respondents/Respondents/Respondents S Y N O P S I S The 1st petitioner is an MSME enterprise, which had availed credit facilities from the respondent-bank by mortgaging properties to the latter. Being an MSME-borrower, registered under the MSMED Act, 2006, the 1st petitioner/Micro enterprise was entitled to the benefits under the various statutory notifications and circulars issued by the MSME Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India,...

To declare that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is unconstitutional and void, or at least Sections 2(c)(i), 14, 16 and 17(5) thereof

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. V. Gangapurwala The Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras

In the 10yr period between 2011 to 2020

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DECLARATORY AND OTHER REMEDIES

BEFORE THE HONOROUBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Disclaimer: