Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Constitution (Amendment) Bill about Voter's right to recall elected representatives was introduced in Lok Sabha by C. K. Chandrappan in 1974 and Atal Bihari Vajpayee had supported this but the bill did not pass. [23] [24] This Right has been opposed by Election Commission of India and debated and highlighted in Indian politics. [25] [26] [27] [28]
A Lok Adalat can take up civil cases (including marriage and family disputes) and compoundable criminal cases. The decision of a Lok Adalat deciding any case coming before it is deemed as final, and any award or decree issued is enforceable on competing parties. [16] Additionally, the issued order cannot be recalled or reviewed by the court.
These authorities periodically organize 'lok-adalats' (Hindi for Public Court) for out-of-the-court settlement of the cases (under provision of the law). There are two types of lok adalats i.e Permanent Lok Adalat (public utility services), and non permanent lok adalat (simply known as Lok Adalat).
Maharashtra Lok Adalat or Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (People's Court) is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism used in state of Maharastra.It is a legal system to resolve pending cases at Panchayat or rural places, those in a pre-litigation stage in courts are resolved amicably. [1]
Name of the case Year Judgement T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India [43] 2013 Officers of the IAS, other All India Services and other civil servants are not bound to follow oral directives, as they "undermine credibility". Lily Thomas v. Union of India along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India [44] 2013
Lok Adalat settles disputes which can be mutually resolved [9] and mostly relating to matrimonial, damages and partition suits. The following are the requirements of the cases before Lok Adalat: Lok Adalat takes up cases which are civil in nature (including marriage, and family disputes) and compoundable criminal cases. [10]
However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was not implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [7] General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more