Law Office Of Satish Swami

Time 2020-12-14 19:03:40

Web Name: Law Office Of Satish Swami

WebSite: http://www.swamilawyer.com

ID:134134

Keywords:

Office,Law,Of,

Description:

The Roshni ActThe genesis of the scam lies in theJammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001known popularly as 'Roshni Act'.The Roshni land scam was thrust into the spotlight after a judgment was delivered by the Jammu Kashmir High Court on October 9, 2020, ordering a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).J K High Court - Roshani Act Scam FIR and JudgmentA Muslim man was held under a state law passed to address accusations by Hindu nationalists that women are being lured into marriage in order to convert them to Islam.The police in northernIndiahave made their first arrest under a new anti-conversion law intended to curb love jihad a highly contentious term used by Hindu nationalists who accuse Muslim men of luring Hindu women to marry them in order to convert them to Islam.The arrest in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh came days after state legislators thereapproved the lawaimed at curbing interfaith marriage, which makes forced religious conversion by marriage an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.TheGujaratHC ordered formandatory community serviceas punishment for violators ofCovid protocolsin public places .Read OrderThis episode provides detailed information on how to file a vehicle accident complaint, what issues to cover and what precautions to take. Explained in simple and plain language.For this contact: advocateswami@gmail.comwww.swamilawyer.comThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on Friday, barred NDTV promoters Prannoy and Radhika Roy from dealing in the securities market for alleged insider trading that occurred twelve years ago.SEBI, passed the following orders:READ ORDER(a) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall, jointly or severally, disgorge the amount of wrongful gain of 16,97,38,335 as computed in the show cause notice, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from April 17, 2008, till the date of actual payment of disgorgement amount along with interest, within 45 days from the date of coming into force of this order;(b) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall be restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of 2 years"It is clarified that during the period of restraining the existing holding of securities, including the units of mutual funds shall remain under freeze in respect of the aforesaid Notices."South Korean prosecutors today demanded a life sentence for the mastermind of one of the largest online sex trafficking rings in the country, saying his victims have made tearful pleas that he be severely punished.Prosecutors also asked the court to order Cho Ju Bin, a 24-year-old indicted for blackmailing women and girls into providing sexual videos and photos to a pay-to-view Telegram chat room, to wear an electronic monitoring device for 45 years during a hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, Yonhap reports.Prosecutors sought prison sentences of 10 to 15 years for four of Cho's accomplices and a 10-year imprisonment for a 16-year-old accomplice and asked the court to ban them from working with children and youths and at welfare facilities for the disabled and wear electronic bracelets.Cho's victims have submitted written petitions to the court through their lawyers, saying their damage will never be forgotten and Cho and his accomplices must be strongly punished. One of the victims said in a petition that Cho and his co-conspirators are evil and deserve imprisonment for 2,000 years.Delivering a final statement during the hearing, Cho said he has regrets about failing to respect human dignity and wants to sincerely repent for his offenses. Cho's accomplices also expressed remorse for their crimes but one of them, surnamed Kang, refused to offer an apology.The sentencing hearing is slated for November 26.The prosecutors' demand came one day after they additionally indicted Cho and one of his accomplices for concealing criminal proceeds.Cho was additionally charged with hiding about 108 million won (US$95,200) in criminal proceeds on 53 occasions, according to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office.One of Cho's accomplices, identified only as Kang, was also additionally accused of changing 3.5 million won of cryptocurrency earned from the Telegram chat room called Baksabang, Korean for doctor's room, into cash and delivering the money to Cho, the office said.Cho was earlier indicted for organizing a criminal ring together with 38 accomplices, blackmailing 74 minor and adult victims into filming pornographic content and distributing the sex abuse materials to Baksabang members.Prosecutors asked the court to merge the additional charges against Cho and Kang into their ongoing trials. They have been expanding their probe into Baksabang and other illegal Telegram chat rooms to punish their members.Ingredient of the offence was not established. The High Court has failed to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC and thus failed to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution."........SCREAD JUDGMENTRead JudgmentThe Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the High Court advisories, an advocate cannot be asked to appear physically before court amid COVID-19 pandemic. (VM Singh vs Madan Lal)In case of non-appearancethrough virtual mode even after being intimated, the court concerned will be free to proceed in accordance with the law, it is added.An order to this effect was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.The petitioner before the court was aggrieved by an order passed by a trial court directing the listing of his matter for physical hearing.While doing so, the trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application for hearing through virtual mode on the ground that lengthy arguments might be advanced by the parties.The petitioner challenged the order on account of the fact that the family members of his advocate were vulnerable senior citizens and in the present pandemic situation, it would not be possible for the advocate to physically appear before the trial court.The court was also informed that at present, the only issue before the trial court was restoration of the pending suit.In view the advisories issued by the High Court, petitioner cannot be asked to appear physically unless the advisory is modified by the High Court, however, recently the High Court has issued a fresh advisory that in case parties do not appear even through virtual mode even after being intimated, the Trial Court is free to proceed in accordance with law.READ JUDGMENTThe Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.-Allahabad High Court THE MOTOR VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 N O . 32 OF 2019 An Act further to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988....Free advice on any Legal problem , Email a legal question :How to claim in motor vehicle accident ?Where to file a claim petetion ?What amount should be claimed ?What court fees to be paid at the time of filing claim petetion ?and more....Get Help : Marriage registration for Ahmedabad City as per New Guide lines of Govt.Gujarat Mobile: 9426088066 Contact email: advocateswami@gmail.comClick Here To MailUseful link: Online Board Case Statushttp://ecourts.gov.in/services/Revenue RelatedJantari DetailsGujarat PoliceDistrict Courts InformationSupreme CourtHome Office U.K.GUJARAT REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES ACT, 2006.NOTIFICATION Health And Family Welfare Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Dated the 1st January, 2008. No. GP / 2 of 2008 / LNK - 102006/...Consumer forums can t settle power theft disputes: HCAhmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has ruled that consumer forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints pertaining to power theft betw...CHHATISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGUL.COMM. & ORS. [2010] INSC 277 (15 April 2010)IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL D. NO. 37598 OF 2007 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board ...Appel...TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD v. L. CHANDRASEKARAN & ORS. [2010] INSC 76 (29 January 2010)Judgement NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3148-3149 OF 2002 Tamil Nadu Housi...State Wise - Regional Transport Offices (R.T.O.) SeriesState Wise - Regional Transport Offices (R.T.O.) Series To keep a systematic record of the identity of the vehicles and their owners, each...CHAIRMAN, ALL RAILWAY REC. BOARD & ANR. v. K. SHYAM KUMAR & ORS. [2010] INSC 359 (6 May 2010)Judgement Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5675-5677 OF 2007 Chairman, All India Ra...Contact Us 409, Sahajanand Trade centre, Pritam nagar second Slop Asharam road, Ellisbridge, Pin Code - 380006 Ph: - 0091 8347776888 Mbl.- 0091...SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORP.& ANR. [2009] INSC 756 (15 April 2009)Judgement Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 3483 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8...

TAGS:Office Law Of 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites