Defects raised by the Supreme Court Registry in SLP bearing Diary No. 25532/2014

In a Special Leave Petition drafted by me and filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India bearing Diary No.25532/2014 challenging the Final Judgment and Order of the Hon'ble High court of Bombay at Panaji in Civil Application (Review) in Second Appeal No.24 of 2012.In the objection raised by the supreme court office,the court registry has held that A Power of Attorney holder cannot appear and argue before the supreme court on behalf of a party. And has also held that the application made by the litigant to engage the Power of Attorney Holder to appear and argue on behalf of her is not maintainable as such not to be filed.

I had to do the Drafting because we have experience with the advocates in the Hon'ble High Court  of Bombay at Panaji,they Refused to take up the case of my mother and further tried to misguide us.The Special Leave Petition has been filed by mother In-Person and she also filed an Application in the Special Leave Petition praying to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to allow me to appear and argue the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of her.

 

The litigant herein is my mother a 55 year old primary marathi school teacher who cannot even spell “law”.

A number of High Court advocates in Goa had refused to take up her matter to file a review of a High court order in Second Appeal decided by the high court.The advocates engaged by her had conspired with the opposite party to let her case fail.

The review was then drafted and filed by me(I am her son) in the high court.In this process I had the first hand experience with the corruption in judiciary.lot of efforts were put in by the Advocates to convince us that our stand was wrong.the litigant (my mother) appeared before the Hon’ble High court in person, the matter was dismissed.

Then the special leave petition was drafted by me and was filed in the supreme court.

There are millions of people like my mother,may be more backward and illiterate,financially incapable for getting justice.

To file a case in the supreme court you have to spend more than 100,000/- so that the advocate just drafts and files your case, then for the advocates to just come and sit in the court during the hearings you have to pay him minimum of 50,000/- per hearing.

You can go little cheaper by engaging a fresher or advocate who is just starting with the career,but these inexpensive advocates get ‘purchase’ by the advocates of the opposite party.

Now coming to the point, if such a litigant cannot afford the advocates, cannot he authorize any person whom the litigant has faith in, to appear and argue before the supreme court on his behalf??.

The supreme court registry says, no you cannot!!

But

The supreme court has itself in various judgments and in the matter of Janaki Vasudeo Bhojwani Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439 has held that a power of attorney holder can appear, argue and act on behalf of the party.

It is a different case that though my mother is not aware of the laws and not aware of the procedures of the courts.I can very well deal with the objections raised by the Supreme Court registry.I was just wondering of what the common man will do in such situations,he has no choice but to engage an advocate.

 

Filing Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court,against Judgment & Final order of the High Court of bombay at panaji Bench in Civil Application Review No.11 of 2014

The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in the final order and judgment of Civil Application Review No.11 of 2014 titled Vijaya Gajanan Naik V/s Suresh Basu Naik and Othrs declared that an Article 1565 of the Portuguese civil Code which belongs to the chapter of Portuguese civil code titled the "Contract of Sale",is in actuality provision of succession law.

The Petitioner in the Special Leave Petition has disputed the decision of the Hon'ble High court of bombay at Goa.The Petitioner has claimed that article 1565 of the Portuguese civil code in no way deals with succession as it clearly speaks about contract between parents and childrens(only contract between parents and majors childrens is valid as per the Indian Contract Act),and that whole chapter of contracts in portuguese civil code is repealed by the Indian Contracts Act.

Even if it is assumed that the Decision of the High Court is correct,it will be surprising to know that the said Article 1565 of the portuguese civil code or the provision of succession law as declared by the high court does not exists in any legal publication in the state of Goa even after 58 years of liberation from the portuguese regime.

further the only Case Reporter of the Goa ,that is the Goa Law Times did not include the landmark judgments of Second Appeal No.24 of 2012 Vijaya Gajanan Naik V/s Suresh Basu Naik and Othrs ,which the petitioner had also tried to review  in the high court vide Her Review Application in Civil Application Review No.11 of 2014.

Another Judgment of the Hon'ble high court titled Shri Norberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes and Others V/s Shri Gabriel Sebastiao Idalino Fernandes and Others in Second Appeal No.3 of 2006 which has also upheld the Article1565 of the portuguese Civil Code is also not reported in the Goa Law Times by its publishers. 

The Special Leave Petition was filed relying on the Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Syndicate Bank v. Praba D Naik and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble supreme Court has declared a law that a single provision from a repealed chapter of Portuguese Civil Code cannot sustain,either a chapter exists in its entirely or not,there is no half way about it.

you can download the Draft of Special Leave Petition for reference  here 

Goan Judiciariy! A Corruption free Judiciary!

Recently In a reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice had said that in one year they have 98 representations/ complaints cases against serving judges of high courts.

But in Goa its a different case, the question of anyone making complaint against any judge of Goan courts does not arise at all because the Goan judiciary is free of corruption or favoritism. 

This has been confirmed by the Goa High Court in a reply to a RTI Application, wherein it is stated that during the last 9 years i.e from 2005 to 2013 there has not been a single instance of corruption Complaint in the Goa High Court.

The Goan Judiciary is untouched of corruption, and it’s the most proudest thing for every Goan layperson, as every person in Goa may  he be illiterate, ignorant, uneducated, has access to justice and that too fair justice.