Skip to main content

Complaint against Judge Citation as Per supreme Court


July 30 , 2019
New Delhi
The said matter pertains to a frivolous 100 Cr. Civil Defamation Case filed by a Mumbai , Maharashtra based Developer ; Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt Ltd – Ancillary Co. of Ekta World Pvt promoted by Ashok Mohanani – Chairman and others against the Home-buyer – Vineet Malik , a resident of Gurgaon , Haryana.
Honb’le SC Bench on 15.09.2017 , comprising of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman , Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Navin Sinha had granted ex parte interim stay in the said matter and on 02.02.2018  transferred the said case from Vasai , Thane , Maharashtra to Gurgaon , Haryana as desired by the Home-buyer vide Transfer Petition No.1572 of 2017.
The First and Foremost Ground of the Transfer Petition filed by the Home-buyer :
After the said matter was transferred to Gurgaon District Court , Haryana by Honb’le SC Bench , irregularities in the proceedings started to surface along with improper conduct of the Judicial Officer – ACJ ( SD ) - Pardeep Choudhry who went to an extent to snub and intimidate the Home-buyer by categorically telling him that he has no right to speak , as he is the Defendant in the said case.
As a cautionary measure , on the basis of certified copy of contradictory and erroneous orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge cum CJM – Pardeep Choudhry , Home-buyer moved Transfer Application before the District and Sessions Judge – Ravi Kumar Sondhi with a plea to transfer the said matter to another Judge as apparent that it was unlikely for the said Home-buyer to get justice and also cited a ground such as - access to justice enshrined as a Fundamental Right under Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution to be dispensed without any prejudice.
However , the said Transfer Application was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge – Ravi Kumar Sondhi with a reasoning that , he did not find any irregularities in the said matter and all the more , if the appellant is aggrieved with any order , he may move to a higher court and file an appeal.
On 12.07.2019 , vide an early hearing application moved by the Developer , the said Judicial Officer – ACJ (SD) – Pardeep Choudhry had sent 2 staff members of the Court at the residence of the Home-buyer with a Summon with directions to appear before him on 15.07.2019 without giving him any opportunity to file his say , further the application mentioned.. “failing which an ex – parte order would be passed against him” whereas , the actual date in the said matter was 20.07.2019.
On 15.07.2019 , the Home-buyer moved  Application and  advanced arguments along with submitting documentary evidence comprising of almost 700 pages before the same Judicial Officer – ACJ (SD) - Pardeep Choudhry u/s 340 r/w 195 of C.r.PC against Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt Ltd , it’s Directors , Law Firm – Wadia Ghandy and Co. , Advocates – Pranay Saigal and Amitabh Tewari for committing offences under several sections such as 177, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 209, 415 , 463 , 468 , 120 (b) & 34 of IPC.
On 20.07.2019 , the Home-buyer moved STAY APPLICATION and REQUEST TO COMPLY WITH THE CORRECT PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CITED IN SECTION 340 OF CRPC and also advanced arguments along with submitting documentary evidence comprising of almost 700 Pages before the same Judicial Officer – CJ – (SD) – Pardeep Choudry and thereby yet again pleaded before the said Judicial Officer to grant stay in the Civil Matter and give Precedence to the Criminal Matter vide Perjury Application filed u/s 340 r/w 195 of C.r.PC.
On 23.07.2019 , the said Judicial Officer vide ruling the Judgment passed by him dismissed the Perjury Application without reading the order in the open court.
The said Judicial Officer termed the Perjury Application filed by the Home-buyer as “Premature”in contravention of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Home-buyer had cited more than 30 Judgments to the effect however , the said Judicial Officer still could not find any substance in all such Judgments ruled by High Courts and Supreme Court of India.
Aggrieved by the misconduct of the said Judicial Officer , on 22.07.2019 , the Home-buyer for the 3rd time brought all such facts to the knowledge of Honb’le Chief Justice of India – Ranjan Gogoi and pleaded the Lordship to take away Judicial Independence of the said Judicial Officer as he is completely unbecoming of being an honest and upright Judge who is found to have been repeatedly breaching the established and settled Principles of Law with ulterior motive to benefit the Developer.
On 30.07.2019 , the Honb’le SC registered a complaint filed against the errant Judicial Officer – Pardeep Choudhry – ACJ (SD) cum CJM , Gurgaon District Court , Haryana and officially informed the Home-buyer.
In the matter of R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat (2016) 14 SCC 1, Honb’le Supreme Court had upheld the order of dismissal of a Judge. It ruled as under;
“A Judge passing an order against provisions of law in order to help a party is said to have been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice - breach of the governing principles of law or procedure by a Judge is indicative of judicial officer has been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice - No direct evidence is necessary - A charge of misconduct against a Judge has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities”
In the matter of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others –Vs- The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra , AIR 1990 261 , Honb’le Supreme Court held that ,
Constitution of India, Art.141 PRECEDENTS -
Judges are bound by Precedents and Procedures - They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found , no rule and no authority”
In the mater of Authorized Officer , State Bank of Travancore and Ors. Vs. Mathew K.C. 2018 (3) SCC 85 , where Honb’le Supreme Court ruled as under ;
It is duty of the court to apply the correct law even if not raised by the party.
If any order against settled law is to be passed then it can be done only by a reasoned order.
In the matter of Aniruddha Bahal Vs State ,  2010 SCC online Del 3365,2010(119) DR 102 Honb’le Supreme Court held ,
“It becomes duty of a Citizen under Article 51 A (h) to develop a spirit of inquiry and reforms”
It is a fundamental right of Every Citizen of this Country to have a clean incorruptible Judiciary , Legislature , Executive and other Organs and in order to achieve this fundamental right , every Citizen has a corresponding duty to expose corruption wherever and whenever he finds it.
Honb'le Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan dismissed the Suo Moto Contempt taken by Punjab and Haryana HC against Vashistha and held that , criticism of a Judge on Social Media is contempt of Court.
In the matter of Umesh Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2006 (5) AWC 4519 , Honb’le Supreme Court ruled as under ;
If Judge is passing illegal order either due to negligence or extraneous consideration giving undue advantage to the party then that Judge is liable for action in spite of the fact that an order can be corrected in appellate/revisional jurisdiction - The acceptability of the judgment depends upon the creditability of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the officer and since the confidence of the litigant public gets affected or shaken by the lack of integrity and character of the Judicial Officer, in such cases imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is well justified.
The order was passed giving undue advantage to the main accused - grave negligence is also a misconduct and warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings - in spite of the fact that an order can be corrected in appellate/revisional jurisdiction but if the order smacks of any corrupt motive or reflects on the integrity of the judicial officer, enquiry can be held.
In the matter of K. K. Dhawan‘s case (1993) 2SCC 56 , Honb’le Supreme Court ruled as under ;
“If any Judge acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge.
And he can be proceeded for passing unlawful order apart from the fact that the order is appealable. Action for violation of Conduct Rules is must for proper administration.
In the matter of Sanjay Chandra –Vs- C.B.I. 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 26 2) Honb’le Supreme Court held ;
“Discretion when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law.
“It must be governed by rule, not by humour, it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular”
“An appeal to a Judge]s discretion is an appeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition to, but in accordance with established principles of law”
In the matter of “Palitana Sugar Mills Vs Vilasiniben” dated 20.03.2007 Honb’le Supreme Court held ;
“Judgments of Supreme Court are binding on all Authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
In the matter of South Central Railway Vs B. Yashodabai & Ors on 8 December, 2014 Honb’le Supreme Court ruled that ,
“A Judicial Officer can not violate Article 141 of the Constitution of India”
In the matter of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd Vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997 , Honb’le Supreme Court ruled that ,
“When a position , in law is well settled as a result of Judicial pronouncement of this Court , it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least , for the subordinate Courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position”
“Such judicial adventurism can not be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which unnecessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties.
It is time this tendency stops”

Additional District & Sessions Court Gurgaon Issues Notices to Ekta Group Chairman cum NAREDCO West Vice President along with 4 other Directors For the 2nd Time In a Criminal Revision Filed By a Home-buyer For Registration of an FIR For Committing Cheating , Criminal Breach of Trust , Criminal Intimidation , Criminal Conspiracy with Common Intent and Violating the MOFA Act

New Delhi
July 27 , 2019
In the month of January , 2018 , Sessions Court , Pune registered a Criminal Case against Ashok Gobindram Mohanani also Vice President of NAREDCO WEST and Vivek Mohanani , however the said matter is now being proceeded in the Bombay HC.
In the month of May , 2019 , Honb’le Additional District and Sessions Court , Gurgaon , Haryana issued notices to Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt Ltd and it’s 8 Directors in a yet another Criminal Case filed by it’s Customer for registration of an FIR for committing Cheating ( 420 ) , Criminal Breach of Trust ( 409 ) , Criminal Intimidation ( 503 ) , Criminal Conspiracy ( 120 B ) , with Common Intent ( 34 ) of IPC and violating the MOFA Act 1963.
On July 25 , 2019 , after reviewing the receipt and acknowledgment of the case file , Vakalatnama was placed on record on behalf of the entity and only 3 Directors - Chandra Prakash Goyal , Vikram Hemant Phatarpekar and Savio D’Mello.
2 Summons issued against Sunil Bajaj and Hersh Narendra Gaba were returned back.
Consequently , they have been once again summoned by the said Sessions Court.
Despite Notices issued against Ashok Gobindram Mohanani - Chairman , Vivek Mohanani - MD & CEO and Madhavi Mohanani - Director , no appearance was made by them before the Sessions Court.
It appears , the aforesaid respondents are deliberately and willfully evading their appearance in the said criminal matter.
“Reader’s - Receiver’s Discretion Solicited”
The said matter pertains to Legal News Reporting.

ekta world naredco west gurgaon court supreme court gurgaon police punjab and haryana high court bombay high court credai


Popular posts from this blog

FDA Maharashtra Directory Contact Moblie Number

Food and Drug Administration Directory  DOWNLOAD JUNE 2021 CONTACT LIST PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT Field Office Circle Head (Assit Commissioner Address of Field Office Inspector AHMEDNAGAR A.T. RATHOD (7045757882) 19C, Siddhivinayak Colony,,Near Auxillium School, Savedi,,Ahmednagar - 414003 J.H.SHAIKH (9158424524) AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) Civil Line, Akashwani Road, ,Akola ,AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) AMARAVATI U.B.GHAROTE (9595829895) Office of the Joint Commissioner,Jawade Compound, Near Bus Stand,Amrawati-444 601 C. K. DANGE (9422844477) AURANGABAD S. S. KALE (9987236658) Office of the Joint Commissioner,,2nd floor, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura,Aurangabad R. M. BAJAJ (9422496941) AURANGABAD Zone 2

हिन्दू शब्द वेदों से लिया गया है ना की फ़ारसी से

  HINDU WORD ORIGIN PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT हिन्दू शब्द सिंधु से बना है  औऱ यह फारसी शब्द है। परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है! ये केवल झुठ फ़ैलाया जाता है।ये नितांत असत्य है  ........ "हिन्दू"* शब्द की खोज - *"हीनं दुष्यति इति हिन्दूः से हुई है।”* *अर्थात* जो अज्ञानता और हीनता का त्याग करे उसे हिन्दू कहते हैं। 'हिन्दू' शब्द, करोड़ों वर्ष प्राचीन, संस्कृत शब्द से है! यदि संस्कृत के इस शब्द का सन्धि विछेदन करें तो पायेंगे .... *हीन+दू* = हीन भावना + से दूर *अर्थात* जो हीन भावना या दुर्भावना से दूर रहे, मुक्त रहे, वो हिन्दू है ! हमें बार-बार, सदा झूठ ही बतलाया जाता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुगलों ने हमें दिया, जो *"सिंधु" से "हिन्दू"* हुआ l *हिन्दू शब्द की वेद से ही उत्पत्ति है !* जानिए, कहाँ से आया हिन्दू शब्द, और कैसे हुई इसकी उत्पत्ति ? हमारे "वेदों" और "पुराणों" में *हिन्दू शब्द का उल्लेख* मिलता है। आज हम आपको बता रहे हैं कि हमें हिन्दू शब्द कहाँ से मिला है! "ऋग्वेद" के *"

RTE & School Quota Of Kalyan Dombivli KDMC Region Thane

 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Region School Quota and RTE 25% quota details received from RTI reply from KDMC Education department. Almost in all the schools free education seats for income below Rs1lac is vacant .The vacant seats are illegally filled by private school in open category by private schools by taking donations. KDMC education didnot taken any action. Total approved strength of class is 4 times of RTE quota. If RTE 25% quota is 25 then approved students limit is 100 students. Means 75 students from general and 25 from RTE 25% quota. In all the schools students are more than from approved strength and RTE 25% seats are vacant. It means RTE seats are filled by general students. As per RTE Act 2009 poor quota seats ie RTE25% cannot be filled by general quota in any condition and at any class. Helpline 9702859636  RTE Admission