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.

 

Slp 18992 of 2012 in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challanging Second Appeal No.3 of 2006 passed by High court of Bombay at Goa

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                        

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).18992/2012
(From the judgement and order  dated 09/12/2011 in SA No.3/2006 of The  HIGH
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA)

NORBERTO P.S.FERNANDES & ORS.                                   Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

GABRIEL SEBASTIO IDALINO FERNANDES & ORS          Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief )

Date: 26/11/2012  

CORAM :
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s)        Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
                         Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.

For Respondent(s)        Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv.

 
                                                                 O R D E R

                 This petition is directed  against  order  dated  9.12.2011 passed by Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 3 of 2006.
                 During the pendency of  the  special  leave  petition,  the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and filed  Consent  Terms  along with I.A. No. 1 of 2012.
                 We have gone through the  Consent  Terms,  which  are  duly signed by the parties and their advocates/power  of  attorney  holder.
      The same are taken  on  record  and  the  special  leave  petition  is disposed of in terms thereof.
                 It is needless to say that the parties shall strictly abide by the terms of settlement.