SC: "Corruption is a disquiet Disease for healthy Governance"

While finally adjudicating Criminal Appeal No.2345/2009 on 28th May 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has seriously observed some strict remarks in its final judgment, after keeping in view the rampant corruption prevailing in our society as such that " It should be borne in mind that historically corruption is a disquiet disease for healthy governance. It has the potentiality to stifle the progress of a civilized society. It ushers in an atmosphere of distrust. Corruption fundamentally is perversion and infectious and an individual perversity can become a social evil.

How to achieve Effective Public Speaking...

In order to achieve and Art of Effective Public Speaking, one has to look at The Method of Self-Help Learning rather than going to the teachers of coaching class, because Guru or a Teacher is required to guide and show the direction and show the short coming drawbacks in our speacking. But Art of Effective Public Speaking can be only be achieved and sharpened by self-help and that is only by learning to read yourself and others like a book at first and to see your own and others "WORTHS" Hear each Letters in the Word "WORTHS" means and stands for - W- weakness, O-Opportunity, R-Resources, T-Time, H-Helpfulness and S-Subject If you learn yourself to see and cure your own Weakness, and to bag and capture right Opportunities to speak in public, after mastering all Resources in time, in respect of the Subject upon which you are going to speak timely with a view to be Helpful to your audience ... it would be certainly proved an Effective Public Speaking more or less as per your self-help learning....

SC:"Order obtained by practising fraud & suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, cannot be allowed to stand"

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India today allowed CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2013 of the appellant Mr. Moti Lal Songara, setting aside the order passed by Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Revision No.327 of 2011 and the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1, Jodhpur, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009, with a certain landmark observations against certain impugned orders obtained by the respondent accused by practicing fraud & suppressing material fact before a court of laws as such that" The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle “when infrastructure collapses,the superstructure is bound to collapse. However, the order has been obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand.” The Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken a serious notes of the conducts and attitude with a calculative mindset of such the respondent litigants, who are playing frauds and suppressing the facts with the courts of laws and has emphatetically passed admonishing strictures that“court is not a laboratory where children come to play. Nobody can play in aid of technicalities to his own advantage and the law, in its essential substance, and justice, with its divine attributes, can unceremoniously be buried in the grave."

Landmark Guidelines set up by The Apex Court in respect of Production of Fresh Evidence in Defense after completeion of criminal trial

"Undoubtedly, an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision.Adducing evidence in support of the defense is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial.the Trial Court reached the conclusion that the production of such evidence by the defense was not essential to facilitate a just decision of the case. Such an assumption is wholly misconceived, and is not tenable in law as the accused has every right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The court must examine whether such additional evidence is necessary to facilitate a just and proper decision of the case."The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently set up landmark guidelines in respect of production of fresh evidence in defense after completion of trial, while adjudicating CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.709 of 2013 moved by Natasha Singh and others against CBI. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed further therein that"The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defense, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defense of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties."

"Disruption of an hour's work of parliament costs us Rs25 lakh". Why parliamentarians shall not be liable ???

As per an estimated report, the loss of four hours work in the Lok Sabha due to the bedlam over the opposition's boycott in Parliament's current session is estimated to have caused a Rs 1 crore loss to the nation. The disruption came despite an appeal for the session's smooth running to enable important legislative business, like Food Security Bill and others. All political parties should realize that they have important legislation to discuss in this session and that the session runs smoothly. But the Lok Sabha was adjourned since many days,due to the uproars of BJP's and other opposite parties' parliamentarian. Officials of PRS Legislative Research, a policy study group, noted that the Lok Sabha, which normally meets for five hours a day, was in session for just about half-an-hour as it had to be adjourned due to the pandemonium..A rough estimate, based on the budgetary allocation for parliament's functioning, puts the cost of an hour's work of parliament at Rs.25 lakh. Considering this, the exchequer lost about Rs 1 crore. But obviously due to the deliberate defaults in the Parliament, the Nation has incurred not only a great deal of monitory loss of the public money but also an awful delay in the enactment of some important intended legislation, for which these parliamentarian are duty bound to discuss, debate and resolve to in the large interest of our Nation.It ought to be now the voice of the people of our Nation, at this crucial juncture if all these disrupting parliamentarian should be made collectively responsible for such a huge loss to the Nation.

How can a publicity of state projects promote any minister or office bearer by displaying his photograph or video ??

It is an usual trend seen in our print and visual media that publicity about any state or central project use to promote any concerned leader or office bearer by displaying his or her photographs or video clips at the cost of our public money... recently such a controversy has been disputed in respect of certain publicity materials of Delhi State Project. Similarly several such publicity have been debated in respect of other state projects of Gujarat, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and even states in India.. The crucial question is that how a leader or office bearer can be promoted by displaying his or her photographs or video clips through state project publicity matters at the cost of public money ?? Can all such state project publicity not been published simply with their respective State Logo without displaying their leaders or ministers or office bearers ? Whether any provisions of law have given them to utilize such public money for self promotion of such the leaders ?? Would it not be misuse of power or misapplication of public fund ??

The Apex Court : "Order of High Court confirming eviction of tenant could not be reopened"

The Supreme Court of India has recently observed in the matters of CIVIL APPEAL No. 4127 OF 2013 that " The findings of the(Rent Court) Controller regarding the claim of the appellants for eviction of the respondents on the ground that the appellant bonafide requires the building for rebuilding or reconstruction as affirmed by the appellate authority and the High Court have become final could not be reopened on any ground whatsoever and the respondents cannot now contend that the appellant cannot any longer construct or reconstruct the building on account of drastic changes in the building regulations within the city limit"