Thursday, November 10, 2011
"Plea of Controversial Immunity of our legislators are still misconceived." - Rejected by Delhi High Court.
As per the basic principles of Laws of Contract in our land, a demand or proposal is made and accepted by the lawmakers and promises are given in public as well as in the parliament or legislative bodies to carry out certain action as it is promised, but the same does not happen at all.It becomes a breach of contract, if it is a business transaction or general deal or agreement, but the case is different, if it is a promise given by our parliamentarian or legislators, because they are immune and no liability stick to them for any breach of promise or contract in our system...because there is neither any statutory provisions in our legal system to enforce such promises nor any such statutory enactment like right to recall such the lawmakers, except to wait till next election. Such a similar unfortunate case has been recently adjudicated by our Delhi High Court, where the local resident had asked to have the court direction with a view to enforcing the statements made by the finance minister of Government of National Capital Territory (GNCT) in the Budget speech for the year 2003-2004 for a cut in stamp duty on property transfer. Taking a judicious approach in this legal controversy, the Hon. Justice Mr. S Muralidhar at last rejected this prayer of petitioner to issue a mandamus to the GNCTD and the Government of India, in order to enforce a statement made by the finance minister of GNCTD to the State Legislative Assemble in 2003-04 followed by the statement made in the Parliament by the Union minister for urban affairs, stating in his verdict that "Court cannot direct for enforcement for the promises of the lawmakers made in the Parliament or Assembly unless a statutory provision or notification is issued for the same"
Popular Posts on our Law Office Blogs
" If the land owners are not paid and compensated within two years after the declaration of the acquisition of the proposed land, the w...
While adjudicating **Pinakin Rawal v/s State of Gujarat CR.APPEAL NO.811/2004]****the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its landmark...
Powered by www.kartikey.com ::::: A Law Office of India, pioneering the online concept of free legal aid and laws consultation through E-L...
Before passing Order of detention under PASA act, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the “public order”While applying the ratio, laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court, in the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Su...
Vidhya Sahayak for teachers, Lok Rakshak for police and Gram Mitra in rural administration are "Gujarat State Sponsored Financial Exploitation"A division bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala, has observed las...
On the eve of Dipavali...it is a rising of a new dawn...with a hope of a happy and prosperous New year, We extend our cordial wishes to all ...
Recently, the Supreme Court of India has pronounced a landmark judgment, while adjudicating and dismissing writ petition lodged by Bar Coun...
While exercising Criminal Appellant Jurisdiction in the matters of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2013,moved by appellants Mr. Surender Kaushik a...
Recently yesterday, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has reconfirmed the Rules and Laws about the Admissions of a party while adjudicatin...
Would it not be a discrimination by conferring different forums in different states for trials of certain same Offences under IPC ??Why does there exist typical difference in respect of forum for trial of certain offences like those under sections 326, 409, 466, 467, 468,...
Law Blog Archive
- October (1)
- September (6)
- August (7)
- July (8)
- June (4)
- May (7)
- April (8)
- March (9)
- February (9)
- January (6)
- December (9)
- November (4)
- October (3)
- September (5)
- August (11)
- July (2)
- June (1)
- February (2)