DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA

                                  SHORT NOTE ON LEGAL OPINION FACTS: Manish Kumar is a factory owner at Delhi & supplied goods worth Rs 10 lakh to Surjeet Sinha at Chandigarh. Surjeet paid only Rs 2.60 lakhs & did not make the payment of the balance amount. His intention was bad from the beginning. He kept on buying time on one pretext or the other. Manish Kumar later come to know that he also cheated similarly to other factory owner. Manish filed a written complaint to the police at Delhi but police did not register the FIR.  ISSUE: Whether police are correct for not registering Manish FIR or police are avoiding their duty to register FIR .  BACKGROUND: In the case of Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. & others (2008) Supreme Court in the 5 Judge Bench remark that the number of F.I.R. not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of F.I.R. actually registered. In a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, New Delhi regarding “Image of the police i

  LAW OF DEMAND: Law of demand introduced by Professor Alfred Marshall in his book “Principles of Economics” in 1890. A person willingness to purchase and capacity to pay for the commodity is called demand. In other words, the demand for anything at a given price is the amount of it which will be bought per unit of time at that price. Demand is a effective desire of an individual but all desires are not demand. If a person has income but no willingness to purchase a commodity then there is no demand. On the other hand, if a person has willingness to purchase a commodity but he has income or no income then there is demand. That’s why demand is an effective desire.  The demand of commodities is divided into 2 categories- Individual demand- when a single consumer or a household demand for commodities at a particular time at a given price. Market demand- the sum of total demand by all the household or consumers at a particular time at a given price. The relation between Price & Demand

  Limitations of Lokpal bill Lokpal bill was passed to combat corruption in the nations. This bill was passed after various debates and rejections. This act was introduced in the year 19th century and after eight times refusing the bill, it was finally accepted in the year 2011.  Lokpal and Lokayukta are statutory bodies under the Lokpal act 2013. These institutions were formed to fulfill the responsibility of the ombudsman, which means an authority designated to investigate complaints made against a particular government agency. The functions and jurisdiction of such authorities are ;   Prime minister, Union Minister, or member of parliament of union government in groups can investigate by the Lokpal. The Lokpal can't investigate when the allegation is made against the Prime minister concerning foreign relations, external and internal security, etc. The investigation against the prime minister shall be conducted in secret and this investigation begins when the two-third bench laun

 Right to Information Act Information is an essential part of a human being. The information helps one person to gain knowledge. Before 2005, the information related to a public authority and the process involved was very difficult. The process-related to public authority was lengthy and confusing. Every citizen of India should have the right to information. Right to information is an index to measure the growth and development of a country. The right to information act is an act of the parliament of India, this acts talks about procedures and rules regarding citizens' right to information. This act was replaced by the freedom of information act 2002. This act has citizens are empowered to ask for information from any public authority and get a reply within 48 hours. This bill was passed by parliament on 15 June 2005 and it came into force on the 12 th of October 2005. This act is very important as it is related to article 19 which gives freedom of speech and expression and art

 VEEDAMENEZES V. YUSUF KHAN FACTS The appellant, Mrs. Menezes, is the owner of a house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent Yusuf Khan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1963 one Robert-a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and ‘Halkat’. On the next day the first respondent slapped the face of Robert. This was followed by a heated exchange of abusive words between the first respondent and the appellant’s husband. The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant’s husband a “file” of papers. The file did not hit the appellant’s husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a “scratch”. The appellant lodged information at the Bandra police station complaining that the first respondent had committed house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the face of her servant Robert, and had also caused her a “bleedi

  CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 9, HMA By: Robin Pandey                                                                        Date: 10/03/2022 The Single Judge Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Sareetha case expressed the view that Section 9 of the HMA providing for the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is void as it offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution . He observed that Section 9 of the Act is intended to be enforced by Order 21 Rules 32 and 33 of the CPC by applying financial sanction against the disobeying party. The Court could also enforce its decree through its contempt powers. The consequences of the enforcement of such decree are firstly to transfer the choice to have or not to have marital intercourse to the State and secondly to surrender the choice of the individual to allow or not to allow one's body to be used as a vehicle for another human being's creation to the State. The effect of the decree for restitution is to coerce the unwilling

  State of West Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh & Ors AIR 1980 Fact  On 11 th November, 1970 at around 10:00 pm deceased Ranjit and his brother Samir were sitting outside their house and suddenly 3 police vehicles having 15-20 officers stopped in front of their house and rushed towards them. Both of them started running towards their house and the police officers were chasing them, having revolvers in their hands. Bibhuti Chakraborty made a shot from point blank range on Ranjit and other officers were also constantly firing on both of them which injured Ranjit and were able to catch both of them. They were dragged and dumped into the car. Ranji and Samir both died before any medical assistance could be provided to them as they were injured due to the tussle at their house. Thereafter, Benoy brother of deceased was taken into custody, but was released on the bail. So, aggrieved by the decision of the police officers he filed a complaint in the court and the trial was initiated against