Fair Law Practitioners

22/11/2025

Book writing is a formidable task. On 20 Nov I, ex Services Veteran, practicing Advocate, Visiting Faculty. agriculturist plunged into the domain of Authors ,& got my multi layered role recognized. Thanks to friends for their unconditional love ,&:encouragement.

22/11/2025

Book writing is a formidable task. On 20 Nov. the Defence Services Veteran. Practicing Advocate, Visiting Faculty, agriculturist plunged into the domain of Authors.which provided immense satisfaction to me; all due to good wishes & blessings of friends &

17/08/2025

1970: Lord Mountbatten writes in his book, " I did not cause partition. Indian leaders had already accepted Partition .

17/08/2025

22/03/2025

Justice Yashwant Verma Issue | Delhi HC CJ Commenced Inquiry; Collegium Yet To Recommend Transfer: Supreme Court Clarifies

HC Chief Justice commenced in-house inquiry procedure, before the meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium on March 20. Delhi HC CJ will submit the report to CJI today, and further action will be taken based on it. Also Read - Explained | Can FIR Be Registered Against A Sitting Judge? What Is In-House Inquiry Procedure On Complaint Against Judge? Pending inquiry, Justice Verma is proposed to be transferred from Delhi HC, as his presence at the Delhi HC might hamper the process. It was clarified that the proposal to transfer is independent of the in-house inquiry procedure. 3. SC Collegium has sought the responses of Justice Verma, CJs of Delhi HC, and Allahabad HC on the proposal to transfer Justice Verma. After examining the responses, SC Collegium will take further steps to pass a resolution. The In-house inquiry procedure set up and prescribed by the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457 is available on the website of the Supreme Court of India. The In-house procedure was elucidated and explained in Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 4 SCC 91.
On receiving the information, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court commenced the In-house inquiry procedure collecting evidence and information. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, who had commenced his inquiry before the Collegium meeting on 20th March 2025, will be submitting his report to the Chief Justice of India today i.e. on 21st March 2025. The report will be examined and processed for further and necessary action.
The proposal for the transfer of Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, who is the second senior Judge in the Delhi High Court and a member of the Collegium, to his parent High Court i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, where he will be ninth in seniority, is independent and separate from the In-house inquiry procedure. The proposal was examined by the Collegium comprising of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most Judges of the Supreme Court on 20th March 2025, and thereafter letters were written to the consultee Judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned and Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma. Responses received will be examined and, thereupon, the Collegium will pass a resolution."

the

22/03/2025

Land Acquired By Govt Cannot Be Transferred Back By Beneficiary To Original Owner Through Private Agreement: Supreme Court

Supreme Court today (March 20) ruled that land acquired by the government through its sovereign power of eminent domain for public purposes cannot be transferred back to the original owner by the beneficiary of the acquisition through private agreement.

22/03/2025

Can a FIR be initiated against the Judge of Higher Courts? As per the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), no First Information Report (FIR) can be registered against a sitting judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This measure safeguards judges from frivolous or malicious prosecutions. If the CJI deems the allegations credible, they may advise the President to grant permission for further action. ​
Law Insider
+1
LawArticle
+1

In-House Inquiry Procedure:

To address complaints against judges, the judiciary has established an "in-house procedure," formalized in 1999. This confidential process ensures that allegations are examined internally to uphold the judiciary's integrity. The procedure includes:​
PRS Legislative Research

Submission of Complaint: A detailed, sworn affidavit outlining verifiable facts must be submitted to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or Supreme Court. ​
Department of Justice

Preliminary Examination: The Chief Justice of the respective court reviews the complaint to determine its merit.​

Constitution of a Committee: If the complaint warrants further investigation, a committee comprising senior judges is formed to conduct a detailed inquiry.​

Report and Recommendations: The committee submits its findings to the Chief Justice, who decides on appropriate actions, which may range from advisories to the judge to recommending impeachment in severe cases.​

This structured approach ensures that complaints against judges are handled with due diligence, preserving both judicial accountability and independence.

22/03/2025

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified that the privity of contract is essential to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda, the Court addressed whether a flat seller could file a consumer complaint against the buyer's financier, given the absence of a direct contractual relationship between the seller and the financier. ​
Live Law
CaseMine

Case Background:

The respondent, a flat seller, entered into an agreement to sell a property to a buyer. The buyer secured financing from Citicorp Finance (India) Limited (the appellant) to facilitate the purchase.​

Subsequently, disputes arose between the seller and the buyer regarding payment obligations. The seller filed a consumer complaint against both the buyer and Citicorp Finance, alleging deficiencies in services.​

Supreme Court's Findings:

Privity of Contract: The Court emphasized that to be considered a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the complainant and the service provider. In this case, the seller had no direct contract with Citicorp Finance; the contractual relationship existed solely between the financier and the buyer.​
Live Law

Definition of 'Consumer': Under the Act, a "consumer" is defined as someone who hires or avails of any service for consideration. Since the seller neither hired nor availed services from the financier, he does not meet the definition of a consumer concerning the financier.​

Implications for Third Parties: The Court highlighted that allowing third parties, who lack direct contractual ties, to file consumer complaints could lead to unwarranted claims. Upholding the necessity of privity ensures that only parties to a contract can hold each other accountable under consumer law.​
Lawfoyer

Conclusion:

This judgment reinforces the doctrine of privity of contract within the realm of consumer protection. To seek redress under the Consumer Protection Act, an individual must have a direct contractual relationship with the service provider. In the absence of such privity, as in the case of a flat seller attempting to sue the buyer's financier, the complainant cannot be recognized as a "consumer" under the Act.