LEGAL Access - Layman's Law

23/01/2026

23/01/2026

The Supreme Court on Friday called for status reports from the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) with respect to their ongoing investigation into the alleged bank frauds perpetauted by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group companies and their promoter Anil Ambani.

Link in comment box

23/01/2026

The Supreme Court has stepped in to protect the ecologically sensitive Aravalli Hills, freezing all mining activities after receiving an assurance from the Rajasthan Government. The Bench warned that illegal mining “is an ex facie crime and will be punished,” highlighting the urgent need to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

An expert panel of environmentalists and scientists will assist the Court on technical matters, ensuring that protection of the Aravallis is no longer delayed.

Link in Bio!

23/01/2026

23/01/2026

निकोबार पर पंकज जी का बहुत गहरा काम है. वहां इन दिनों जो कुछ चल रहा है, उसे समझने के लिए आपको इस लांच में जाने के बारे में सोच सकते हैं

05/06/2025

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee of the Calcutta High Court is facing online threats and abuse after denying bail to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested for posting a sensitive video. Despite her deletion of the video and apology, the judge's decision has sparked violent bac...

03/08/2024

Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava vs State of Jharkhand.

It's a must read guys.

I had to share this. On 13.9.2023 I had decided to honour the Hon'ble High Court & also Hon'blle Justice who passed a most absurd and blatantly false order against me and one scoundrel Sushant Sinha who is the owner of India Kanoon published that on some quid pro quo. The biggest scoundrel & fraudster business group of India, the TATAS are known for such tricks. This scoundrel Sushant Sinha must be having some degrees like we have been searching for Modi for long.
This scoundrel Sushant Sinha didn't read the first para of order dated 13.09.2023 in that Writ Petition which is very damaging for the Hon'ble Justice itself and is also a disgrace for Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi. But why should TATAS be careful about the prestige of Hon'ble Justice or Hon'ble High Court or for that matter Sushant Sinha. TATA Steel has misappropriated 12708 acres of tribal land at Jamshedpur and has earned more than 10 lakh Cr. Govt. Revenue in last 100 years which should have been appropriated by the local Authority or the tribals themselves. TATAS are bloody greedy beasts for money.

During the corse of hearing I was present in the court as litigant and not as an Advocate. The Honble Justice all of a sudden inquired from me how much acres of land I wanted from TATAS in lease implying that I had filed that writ for land from its so called owner TATA. The Hon'ble Justice either does not know a b c of so called Tata land and laws relating thereto or is simply motivated. TATAs are not landlords I repeat they are encroachers of tribal land & big fraudsters. I was astonished by the query of Hon'ble Justice. I inquired from Hon'ble Justice who had given him that brilliant information? Nothing was written as such in any affidavits. TATAS had also not filed any affidavits. Hon'ble Justice refused to answer to my counter query. TATAS must have met the Hon'ble Justice in his chamber.

Infuriated at such blatantly false allegation against me in open court I wrote to Hon'ble Chief Justice of Jharkhand with a copy to Chief Justice of India and thereafter the Hon'ble Justice was in a bind and he had to record that blatantly false and fraudulent query in his order. I am not sharing that complaint made to Chief Justice as I am an officer of the Court. But because that order is on India Kanoon now you can read that order by just typing,

Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava vs State of Jharkhand on google and get aquainted yourself.

Now one more thing. That report on India Kanoon says I have paid 11 lac to JUSCO for electricity connection which utterly false as I have paid mere 1.14 lac for a new connection and that connection is the first in Jamsedpur esle for others these TATA scoundrels have appointed their agents and they are none other than the builders who have violated Municipal Laws in connivance with TATAS by contruting multi-storied High rise buildings.

One last thing. Do you know why these thugs, the TATAS got that order published in India Kanoon? To threaten the hapless citizens of Jamshedpur. They want to send a message to them that don't go to High Court against us see what we have done to Adv Shrivastava. But I say don't panick. Come to me TATAS forefathers will come alive to grant you water and electricity connections or else they will very soon be seen at NCLT.

Hindi coming soon.

23/02/2023

ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12693/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-04-2018
in CA No. 03/2014 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi)
INDICA COMPOSITE PRIVATE LTD
THROUGH BOARD OF DIRECTORS & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NAND KUMAR SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 21-02-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
BHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Anu Sawhney, Adv.
Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Satpal Wadhwa, Adv.
Ms. Anjali Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Divya Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Akhilesh Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR
Mr. Akash Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Sunita Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Company Judge dated 02.04.2018 reversing the finding recorded
by the Company Law Board under its order dated 24.09.2013.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
After going through the record, we are of the view that theorder passed by the Company Judge dated 02.04.2018 is not legally sustainable in law. However, while affirming the order of the Company Law Board, we consider it appropriate that the
valuation/shareholding of 23% shall be considered on the AnnualReturn for the financial year 2009-10 and, at the same time, theadvance payment of Rs.1,10,14,188.58 shall be made over to the
respondent, of which reference has been made by the Company Law
Board under its order with interest @ 12% per annum to be computedfrom 01.04.2009 until the actual payment.
So far as the appointment of approved valuer is concerned, theparties are at liberty to approach the High Court for seeking
necessary orders.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of the CompanyLaw Board dated 24.09.2013, the special leave petition standsdisposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed ofaccordingly.
(NAND KISHOR) (ASHWANI KUMAR)
BRANCH OFFICER ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS

It was a battle of nerves yesterday before Hon'ble Supreme Court & all the moral layers of the case fully exposed. This matter came to me in 2012 and I appeared before CLB, Hon'ble High Court & Supreme Court.

CLB had granted my client exit option with 23% shares and ₹1.10 crore on a bogus valuation. Hon'ble High Court granted 79% shares and restored his directorship & his control & manangement. Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed that my client could not have been exited from the company though that was observed by the Hon'ble High Court on consideration of hard interpretation of Companies Act. When Hon'ble Justice remarked he disagreed with Hin'ble High Court order I immediately realised the Hon'ble Supreme Court was adjudicating on the basis of preponderance of probabilities than Companies Act. I said, "Then I leave that to your lordship". Hon'ble Justice smiled & remarked being eldest you sacrifice even though your brothers have become richer out of your money without making any investment. How much should I sacrifice, I inquired. Hon'ble Court knew my client had agreed for 50% during mediation. But Hon'ble Court also knew it could not legally grant 50%. So it offered me to chose the date on which the valuation of shares was maximum. I chose. It also asked me to offer the rate of interest which compensated me substantially. I left it to your lordship.

What is the moral of story?

1. If you are going before Hon'ble Supreme Court for a remedy under Companies Act you must have an alternative argument under civil law. Its difficult to argue Companies Act before all benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court;
2. Companies Act gives an idea how to get practically under civil law what you theoretically lose under Companies Act;
3. The Indian Judiciary is in the abyss but still fraudsters have a life of 10 - 15 years. You can cheat and misappropriate others' money plunder and splurge but after 15 years you be ready to land up in jail.

23/09/2020

Macdaddy Adv Harish Salve argued before SC that 18.37% shares of Shapoorji Pallonji Group in TATA Sons can be purchased by TATAS hence can't be allowed as security by Shapoorji Pallonji Group to raise fund for their business and the brokers at Supreme Court led by CJI allowed it! TATAS can raise fund on 15725 acres of tribal land at Jamshedpur created & allowed by big frauds of Bihar-Jharkhand politics, Jagannath Mishra, Chandrasekhar Singh, Bideshwari Dubey, Laloo Yadav, Arjun Munda et al but Shapoorji Pallonji Group can't use it's own shares in TATA SONS as if they are slaves of TATAS! Whether shares of TATA Sons not transferrable and TATAS have overriding rights to decide about its transfer or even offering them for security? Under what law Supreme Court passed this Order? Under what law Justice Bobde? Supreme Court is the biggest threat to rule of law & federalism in India today! English set up Supreme Court to promote rule of law & federalism, by Constitution we made this as Highest Court to protect fundamental rights but the jokers and pimps elevated as Supreme Court Justices failed us! No wonder English kept privy council as Appellate body at England knowing well some species of Indians are moralless beasts, spineless, subservient creatures by DNA represented by last four CJIs of India and their gang of scumbags!

20/09/2020

It's an irony that Dr. J J Irani was the chairman of the committee for drafting new companies act. I expressed publicly that Irani being a technocrat was completely unfit for the coveted post and for the reason that he was one of the main accused in trade union leader B G Gopal's gruesome murder. It's a different case that his name was removed from the initial FIR for reasons known to many insiders which is rather publicly known. I am of the considered view that B G Gopal murder must be reinvestigated as all conspirators including the main one were allowed to let go!

The victim of stupidity in drafting of one of the various sections of Companies Act, 2013 this time is the most infamous TATA group company TAYO ROLLS LTD which is forced to adjourn it's AGM for presence of less than 30 members as it's total number of shareholders is more than 5000.

Now, coming to law. In 1956 Act presence of 5 members in the AGM irrespective of its total number of share holders was valid. Irani Committee members having cow dund in their brains did their brain storming and increased the minimum numbers and fixed the numbers on three scales. If the number of shareholders is more than 5000, the minimum requirement for quorum is fixed at not less than 30. Stupids idiots why you thought yourself more intelligent than English who enacted this law followed by the whole world? Why did you pretend to be more democratic? Did you do anything to strengthen democracy in India? How many Independent Directors are really independent in TATA Group companies? The TATAS bloody don't follow the most basic norms of corporate governance and look at their audacity in advising the Government to make provisions for broad based general meetings of companies when they retained the same ordinary business for AGMs in which shareholders have no role as both Directors and Auditors are chosen and fixed by the business houses (who have misappropriated the country's wealth) and shareholders only put their stamp in the AGM.