[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The court of Special Judge is appointed to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is no provision for the same in the Criminal Procedure Code. Such courts are established under the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is reproduced below:

“3. Power to appoint Special Judges.—(1) The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely:—

(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and

(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a).

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

There appears to be a case decided by Patna High Court similar to the facts of your case.

In the case of Annapurna Agrawal v. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, AIR 1984 Pat 215, Patna High Court held that:

“It is well settled that even if new facts are introduced but if those facts do not change the character of the suit, the amendment should be allowed. The test is whether new assertion, a new cause of action and foreign to the scope of the suit, changes the entire complexion of the suit. If it does, then the amendment cannot be allowed.”

It was further held:

“…such amendments on such grounds (of course being available under the Act) being based on subsequent event should be allowed in a suit for eviction against the tenant just to shorten the litigation, to preserve the rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice. Reference may be made to the case of Sachchidanand v. Heeranand, 1983 BBCJ (HC) 168 : (AIR 1983 Pat 276).”

The High Court also held that: “The existence of one or more of the grounds mentioned in the Act for eviction of the tenant does not constitute a necessary part of the cause of action in a suit for eviction of the tenant. A cause of action in a suit under the Act for eviction of the tenant is certainly an accrual of a disability against the tenant pertaining to the grounds mentioned for eviction due to his conduct or laches, thus disentitling the tenant from the protection against his eviction. There is nothing which debars a Court from permitting, the introduction of a cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit by way of amendment so long as the defendant has an opportunity of meeting the new case by amendment of his written statement and by leading evidence in support of his defence, if any. The Act forbids the Court from passing a decree or order of eviction which is dehors the Act. The existence of one or more of the grounds for eviction mentioned in the Act is a sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.”

In the above case, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint for inserting the following additional paragraph:

“That it is submitted that the defendants are defaulter in the eye of law and thus liable to be evicted for not having paid any amount towards the rent of the suit premises even after the filing of the suit up to the month of April, 1983.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The answer to your question will depend on the provisions contained in the statutory rules applicable for the government servants concerned.

For example, under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 9 allows the Government the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. This right of the Government to withhold or withdraw the pension is subject to conditions mentioned in this Rule 9.

However, under rules applicable to government servants of certain states, there may be no such statutory rules.

In this regard, it may be pointed out that in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210 : AIR 2013 SC 3383, the Supreme Court has held that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which is reproduced as under:

“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

Observing that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in “property”, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It was held that therefore the attempt of the Jharkhand Government to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.

In the above case, it was found that there was no power to withhold pension under the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which was applicable in Jharkhand. In these circumstances, it was held that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. It was held that on the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the Government cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. So far as statutory Rules are concerned, there was no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. The Supreme Court held that had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different.

Thus, from the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that if the statutory rules provide for withholding of pension, etc., it may be permissible, provided the rules have the force of law.

In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, it would depend on the provisions contained in the relevant statutory rules framed by a concerned Government whether a power has been given to the Government to withhold pension and/or gratuity etc. and in what circumstances.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Yes, if a sale transaction could not be completed due to refusal by one party, leading to cancellation of the sale transaction, refund of the stamp duty which has already been paid can be sought. Law allows refund of such stamp duty.

The relevant legal provisions for this purpose are Sections 49 and 50 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and Section 65 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Section 65 of the Contract Act enables the party to a contract to seek restoration of all advantage from a person which he took from such contract when the contract is discovered to be void or becomes void. This section is as under:

“65. Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.—When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it.”

Further, Section 49 of the Indian Stamps Act, which allows refund of the stamp duty paid in various circumstances, is reproduced below:

“49. Allowance spoiled stamps.—Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government as to the evidence to be required or, the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on application made with the period prescribed in Section 50, and if he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases hereinafter mentioned, namely:—

(a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument written thereon in executed by any person;

(b) the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto;

(c) in the case of bills of exchange payable otherwise than on demand or promissory notes—

(1) the stamp on any such bill of exchange signed by or on behalf of the drawer which has not been accepted or made use of in any manner whatever or delivered out of his hands for any purpose other than by way of tender for acceptance:

Provided that the paper on which any such stamp is impressed, does not bear any signature intended as or for the acceptance of any bill of exchange to be afterwards written thereon;

(2) the stamp on any promissory note signed by or on behalf of the maker which has not been made use of in any manner whatever or delivered out of his hands;

(3) the stamp used or intended to be used for any such bill of exchange or promissory note signed by, or on behalf of, the drawer thereof, but which from any omission or error has been spoiled or rendered useless, although the same, being a bill of exchange may have been presented for acceptance or accepted or endorsed, or, being a promissory note, may have been delivered to the payee: provided that another completed and duly stamped bill of exchange or promissory note is produced identical in every particular, except in the correction of such omission or error as aforesaid, with the spoiled bill or note;

(d) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which—

(1) has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning;

(2) has been afterwards found unfit, by reason of any error or mistake therein, for the purpose originally intended;

(3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is necessary that it should be executed, without having executed the same, or of the refusal of any such person to execute the same, cannot be completed so as to effect the intended transaction in the form proposed;

(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended;

(5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under the same, or to advance any money intended to be thereby secured, or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, totally fails of the intended purpose;

(6) becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected being effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value;

(7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to be thereby effected has been effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value;

(8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu whereof another instrument made between the same parties and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped:

Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, no legal proceeding has been commenced in which the instrument could or would have been given or offered in evidence and that the instrument is given up to be cancelled.

Explanation.—The certificate of the Collector under Section 32 that the full duty with which an instrument is chargeable, has been paid is an impressed stamp within the meaning of this section.”

Section 50 of the Indian Stamps Act lays down the time period during which an application for refund of stamp duty can be made:

“50. Application for relief under Section 49 when to be made.—The application for relief under Section 49 shall be made within the following periods, that is to say,—

(1) in the cases mentioned in clause (d)(5), within two months of the date of the instrument;

(2) in the case of a stamped paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the stamp has been spoiled;

(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument, or, if it is not dated, within six months after the execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed:

Provided that,—

(a) when the spoiled instrument has been for sufficient reasons sent out of India, the application may be made within six months after it has been received back in India;

(b) when, from unavoidable circumstances, any instrument for which another instrument has been substituted, cannot be given up to be cancelled within the aforesaid period, the application may be made within six months after the date of execution of the substituted instrument.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

One should never sign a document without reading it. It binds you to the contents thereof.

Order 26 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down when evidence taken under a commission shall not be read in evidence. Get it examined through your lawyer in the facts of your case if can help you in this regard:

“8. When depositions may be read in evidence.— Evidence taken under a commission shall not be read as evidence in the suit without the consent of the party against whom the same is offered, unless—

(a) the person who gave the evidence is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, or dead or unable from sickness or infirmity to attend to be personally examined, or exempted from personal appearance in Court, or is a 1[person in the service of the Government] who cannot, in the opinion of the Court attend without detriment to the public service, or

(b) the Court in its discretion dispenses with the proof of any of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a), and authorises the evidence of any person being read as evidence in the suit, notwithstanding proof that the cause for taking such evidence by commission has ceased at the time of reading the same.”

Also, examine the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC which relates to recall and examination of any witness at any stage of the suit, and see whether it can help you, and if does, then file an application for that purpose giving reasons:

“17. Court may recall and examine witness.— The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

I do not know in what context you have asked this question, whether for joining a service in some hospital or medical college or for some other purpose.

As far as I understand there is no legal term like “medical specialist” defined in any Act. If you are referring to requirements for recruitment as medical professionals, you may have to refer to the minimum qualifications or requirements as mentioned in the advertisement / notice / rules for such recruitment, etc.

Generally speaking, a post-graduate degree such as MD or MS (after completion of MBBS) may be considered as a specialist degree in a particular branch, such as Gynaecology. But, then, it may depend on the context in which it is mentioned, and different degrees or minimum requirements may be specified by concerned organisations for recruitment, etc., as per their job requirements.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Considering the fact that the charges against you include attempt to murder (which may be punishable with up to life imprisonment) and under Arms Act, usually the deemed suspension may continue till completion of trial. Where the suspension is on account of a serious criminal case, the suspension (or deemed suspension) is not likely to be revoked till you get acquitted in the case or get a discharge from the court. If the case against you is not charge sheeted by police, then also there would be good chance of revocation of suspension (though a departmental inquiry may still be initiated in such situation). However, this is the general experience and ultimately it is the discretion of the competent authority. If the competent authority deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it may revoke the suspension earlier. It may also depend on what is the nature of evidence against you. But, the chances of an earlier revocation of suspension are comparatively less in a case of this nature. You may challenge the suspension in court if you have a good case in your favour.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

It is between you and your advocate as to how the professional fee was to be paid, including the fact as to whether the upfront fee paid included fee for the full case. If you are not satisfied with his services, you may first try to sort out the matter amicably by discussing with him; if he does not agree and you have a claim against him, you may make a complaint to the State Bar Council concerned, including the aspect of the refund of fee. If you do not get a solution even after this, then your only option would be to file a regular proceeding in court to recover the extra fee paid, if any. But, then, for this, you may have to prove the fee schedule and how the fee paid upfront was to be utilized, etc. It may also be a long-drawn process.

While I cannot comment on the facts of your case as to whether you would succeed in getting refund of your fee, generally speaking, it may not be an easy task. It would be better if you can amicably settle the matter with him.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

For challenging the order of the High Court in a writ petition (even if such order relates to a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), the Municipal Corporation will have to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. For filing the SLP, the relevant rules of the Supreme Court will be applicable for the purposes of limitation.

In the circumstances mentioned by you, the limitation period for challenging the high court order in the Supreme Court by way of SLP is 90 days. However, the Supreme Court has the power to condone the delay if a genuine cause is shown for the delay in filing SLP.

So, in your case, already the matter is beyond the period of limitation if the Corporation wants to challenge the high court order in the Supreme Court.

In view of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (which is shown below), you can claim benefit, during the period of pendency of proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court, of full wages last drawn by you, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to you under any rule, subject to the conditions mentioned in this section:

“17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.—Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.”

 

You may file a contempt petition against the concerned authority for not complying with the order issued. This may help you to get the order complied with on an expeditious manner. However, if the Corporation has already taken a decision to challenge the HC order in the Supreme Court (as you have mentioned), they may rush to the SC to file SLP along with an application for stay against the contempt petition and also along with an application for condonation of delay. But, even if they do so, the process will get expedited.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Firstly, remember that I have replied to your legal question contained in your second paragraph of the question as to whether there can be revision against order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Facts are individual to each case, but the legal question remains the same. My answer to the legal question was “yes”.

Secondly, you should disclose all relevant facts in your initial question itself, instead of clarifying later. In fact, your initial question mentioned that her complaint mentioned that cognizable offence was committed.

Please also remember that Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable in one or two states (such as in Andhra Pradesh). So, I have to consider general scenario, not knowing full facts.

In any case, legally speaking, the order of the Magistrate holding that the offence was non-cognizable and hence no order could be issued under Section 156(3), may itself be challenged in revision, though ultimately, the Sessions Court may agree with the Magistrate if it is non-cognizable offence.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Record the conversation when she threatens you by saying that she would file a case of sexual harassment against you if you demand return of money. If she threatens regularly but does not get the case registered, that would give an indication of her intent. If you get such evidence, you may report it to the police; that again would show that you were being threatened for a specific motive.

Above recording may help you in showing your innocence. Rest will depend on what type of allegation is made ultimately against you and what type of supporting evidence is available with her to support the allegation against you.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Yes, revision petition can be filed against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court or High Court. This is irrespective of whether such order rejected the prayer for investigation or granted such prayer.

In this regard, let me point out the observations of a division bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Avinash v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5197:

“…the order u/s 156(3) of the Code not being an interlocutory order, but being a final order in a proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code would certainly be revisable under the revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court. … the order u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not an interlocutory order, but is a final order terminating the proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code and that the revision u/s 397 or Section 401 of the Code would lie.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

It may look strange, but it is true that it may perhaps be possible for a divorced wife to claim maintenance from her former husband in certain circumstances even after mutual consent divorce, and may be, when she had agreed that she would not claim maintenance in future and had agreed to take a one-time settlement.

In fact, the Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. clearly states that a divorced wife is also “wife” for the purposes of that section:

“(b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

Therefore, it should legally be possible for a divorced wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her former husband if she has not remarried and if she is unable to maintain herself.

Likewise, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is reproduced as below:

“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.—(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”

Sub-section 25(1) clearly shows that “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto” the court has the power to grant maintenance. Thus, even after passing a decree of divorce (which may also be on the basis of a mutual consent decree), the court has the legal power to grant maintenance subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

Likewise, sub-section 25(2) also gives power to the court to modify an order of maintenance, etc., passed under sub-section 25(1), and such modification can be made “at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1)”.

There are some judgments to support the above view. For example, see the case of Geeta Satish Gokarna v. Satish Shankarrao Gokarna, AIR 2004 Bom 345, in which a division bench of Bombay High Court upheld the right of a divorced wife to claim maintenance under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, even though she had earlier agreed to the consent terms at the time of mutual consent divorce, including a condition that she will not claim any maintenance or alimony in future from the husband.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

As far as I understand, the fundamental right to equality may not be applicable in such situation. Reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14 (Right to Equality). In fact, on the other hand, those with 2BHK may also claim as to why they should be asked to pay equal to those who have bigger apartments of 3 BHK. That’s why in my previous replies (links to which I have shared earlier), I have suggested that some components of the maintenance charges may perhaps be on per square fee basis while some other components of the same may be on fixed / equal basis for all members, in order to have an equitable formula. But, ultimately, it is for the members of the society to decide, and that will have to be on the basis of majority as per democratic principles. The whole government in the country is elected on the basis of majority (in fact, due to multi-polar elections, it may not even be majority). The opposite formula of minority vote ruling may be considered even more dangerous. So, ultimately, it is for the society to decide.

The Cooperative Societies Acts also generally give such liberty (to fix maintenance charges) to the society itself by making its own bye-laws. Please check the Societies Act which may be applicable in your state.

Life is not just and fair always. System has many inherent inequalities. Luckily, one can pick and choose in the matter of a housing society, whether to live with injustice or to quit it. But, what about the country which is also run on the basis of majority, with so many inequalities? Can we quit?     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

You have to file a private complaint in cheque bounce case in the court. There is no FIR in such matter.

We do not have legal formats on this website. There are many websites on Internet which provide legal formats. Please search on Internet.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Author]

Posts