0

Supreme Court Mandates Hybrid Hearings for State Information Commissions: A Step Towards Digital Access to Justice.

Blog , , , ,

Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 360 of 2021.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: October 09, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble CJI.  D. Y. Chandrachud, J.  J.B. Pardiwala, J.  Manoj Mishra.

Facts of the Case:

In 2021, Kishan Chand Jain filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions for better functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that most SICs are located in state capitals and conduct only physical hearings, imposing prohibitive costs on applicants from remote areas.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether SICs should provide virtual hearing options alongside physical hearings?
  2. Whether SICs should implement online filing systems for RTI appeals and complaints?
  3. Whether the current functioning of SICs aligns with the objectives of the RTI Act?

Legal Provisions:

Right to Information Act, 2005.

Section 15: Constitution of State Information Commissions.

Section 18: Powers and functions of Information Commissions.

Section 19: Appeal procedure.

Section 26: Development of programs by appropriate Government.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for petitioners aregued that virtual hearings would provide cost-effective access to information for applicants. Most SICs lack online filing facilities for RTI appeals and complaints, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC). SICs should adopt user-friendly digital portals to enhance their effectiveness.

Arguments of the Respondents

The leraned counsel for respondents aregued that the responses varied among different state SICs. Some states (e.g., Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana) had already adopted hybrid modes of hearing. Others (e.g., Sikkim, Goa) had not implemented virtual hearings. Some states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh) were not opposed to virtual hearings but had not yet implemented them.

Judgment and analysis

The Supreme Court issued the certain directives. All SICs must provide hybrid modes of hearing for complaints and appeals by December 31, 2023. SICs must implement e-filing systems for complaints and appeals by December 31, 2023. Central and State Ministries must compile email addresses of Public Information Officers within one month. The Department of Personnel and Training must convene a meeting of all Central and State Information Commissioners within one month to establish implementation modalities. State Governments must provide necessary funds for setting up virtual hearing infrastructure.

The judgment recognizes the right to information as a constitutional right, intertwined with Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21. It emphasizes that access to Information Commissions is crucial for securing this right. The Court’s decision aligns with the broader push for digital access to justice, acknowledging that technology can democratize legal processes and expand access beyond physical limitations.

The directive for hybrid hearings and e-filing systems is a significant step towards making the RTI process more accessible and efficient. It addresses the geographical and financial barriers that often hinder citizens from remote areas from fully utilizing the RTI Act. However, the effectiveness of this judgment will depend on its implementation. Factors such as digital literacy, internet connectivity in remote areas, and the adaptability of SICs to new technologies will play crucial roles in realizing the intended benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India marks a progressive step towards digitizing and democratizing access to information. By mandating hybrid hearings and e-filing systems, the Court has attempted to bridge the gap between citizens and Information Commissions. This decision has the potential to significantly enhance the efficacy of the RTI Act, provided it is implemented effectively and uniformly across all states. As we move forward, it will be crucial to monitor the implementation of these directives and their impact on citizens’ ability to exercise their right to information.

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Supreme Court Denies Belated Pension Claim; Orders Compensation for Delayed Settlement Payments

Blog

Case Title: Syndicate Bank v. N.R. Bhat

Case No: S.L.P (c) No. 7277/ 2020

Dated on: 10 October 2023

Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI and JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent joined the petitioner as an Officer Trainee on 31st March, 1969, and was later posted as a Probationary Junior Officer on 3rd October, 1969. On 6th August, 1982, the respondent was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service on 3rd March, 1997, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 6th April, 1997. The respondent challenged these orders by filing a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No.20386/1997). On 23rd June, 2005, the High Court set aside the dismissal and appellate orders, remitting the matter back to the petitioner for reconsideration. The petitioner appealed this decision in an Intra Court Appeal (Writ Appeal No.3255 of 2005). During the appeal, the parties reached an amicable settlement, as per a Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019. The penalty of dismissal was substituted with a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by four stages without affecting the respondent’s retiral benefits. On 17th June, 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court took the Joint Memo on record and allowed the respondent to apply for retiral benefits, instructing the petitioner to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. Aggrieved by the aforesaid liberty granted to the respondent, the petitioner filed a petition in the supreme court of India.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995: These regulations governs the process and entitlements of the bank employees regarding pension.

Circular dated 16th September, 2010: This circular Provided another opportunity for employees who had not opted for the pension scheme earlier to exercise this option.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner stated that The High Court ought not to have permitted the respondent-employee to apply for pensionary benefits since the matter was already settled by the Joint Memo of Settlement dated 17th June, 2019. The respondent-employee had an opportunity to opt for the pension scheme in 1995 when the Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations were first notified. As he was an employee at that time and failed to opt for the pension scheme, he should not be allowed to demand pension now. The petitioner further drew the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 16th September, 2010 filed by the respondent-employee with counter affidavit (Annexure A) whereunder another opportunity was extended to those employees who had not opted for pension earlier, to enable them to do so in terms of the said circular. Despite this, the respondent-employee did not exercise the option for pension at that time. Since the respondent-employee failed to exercise the pension option during both opportunities, he should be barred from raising the issue of pension in 2019.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The petitioner submitted that despite the Joint Memo of Settlement, he should be allowed to exercise the option for availing pensionary benefits, as permitted by the High Court. The respondent contended that the petitioner due of the high court’s order did not release the amounts payable to the respondent in terms of the Memo of settlement and that the said amounts were finally released as recently as on 30th September, 2023. He, therefore, states that that the respondent-employee ought to be compensated for illegal withholding of the settlement dues payable to him in terms of the Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court accepted the petitioner submission that the respondent had opportunities to opt for the pension scheme in 1995, when the Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations were first notified, and again in 2010, as per a circular. The Court noted that the dismissal of the respondent in 1997 was set aside by the High Court in 2005, which restored the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the respondent had an ample opportunity to exercise the pension option in 2010 but failed to do so. The Court held that since the respondent missed the opportunity to opt for the pension scheme when it was available, he could not claim the benefit of pension in 2019, especially after entering into a Joint Memo of Settlement with the petitioner that did not include this option. The Court found merit in the respondent’s contention that the petitioner delayed the implementation of the Joint Memo of Settlement. The Court agreed with the respondent that the petitioner should compensate for the delay in payment. The Court directed the petitioner to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st July, 2019, until the date the amounts were released (30th September, 2023). The Court further stipulated that if the interest component was not paid within four weeks from the date of the judgment, the interest rate would be increased to 15% per annum. The petition for special leave to appeal and any pending applications, if any,  were disposed of in these terms.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

 

0

Patna High Court Allows Cross-Examination on Boundary Discrepancies in Property Dispute

Blog

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a suit for the declaration of title and confirmation of possession over a piece of land, seeking recovery of possession if dispossessed during the suit and a permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant responded with a written statement. During the recording of the defendant’s evidence, the Munsif-I, Munger, barred the plaintiff’s counsel from cross-examining the defendant on the boundary details in the sale deed, citing Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits altering document contents through oral evidence. The order dated April 22, 2016, was challenged by the plaintiff through a review petition on May 21, 2016, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016 but was subsequently rejected on March 2, 2017. The plaintiff then contested these orders in the Patna High Court through Civil Misc. Petition No. 1076 of 2017, dated June 26, 2024.

The petitioner claimed that the suit property, originally owned by Ram Sahay Yadav and partially sold to Jhagru Gope, was transferred to the petitioner by Gope’s wife in 1949 with an incorrect plot number (654 instead of 659) due to a deed writer’s mistake. The petitioner corrected this mistake in 1989, resulting in an updated Jamabandi. Later, the petitioner bought more land from Genhari Yadav, but the error recurred. Despite past panchayati acknowledgment of the mistake and resolution of a right-of-way dispute, the respondent sought to claim the land by filing a petition to correct the jamabandi. The petitioner appealed, leading to a civil court directive to resolve the issue, resulting in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011. The petitioner argued that the trial court wrongly prevented cross-examination on boundary details, misapplying Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner sought to clarify boundaries, not alter document terms, citing Supreme Court decisions allowing correction of misdescriptions and oral evidence in such cases, arguing that the trial court’s orders were legally unsustainable and should be set aside.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the trial court’s order was correct and should be upheld, as Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bar questions about the contents of a registered document. The respondent contended that the petitioner’s claim was based on a fraudulent document since the respondent’s father, who allegedly sold the land, died in 1977, making it impossible for him to execute a sale deed in 1980. The respondent maintained possession of Plot No. 659, contrary to the petitioner’s claim of an incorrect plot number in the 1949 sale deed. The respondent argued that Ram Sahay Yadav never sold Plot No. 659 to Jhagru Gope, making the correction deed by Dhaniya Devi invalid. The respondent’s Jamabandi was restored, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Collector. The respondent’s counsel asserted that the petitioner’s cited cases were irrelevant due to differing facts, and the petition should be dismissed.

UPDATE

Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court reviewed the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 91 emphasizes that the terms of a document must be proved by the document itself or secondary evidence. Section 92 generally prohibits oral evidence to contradict the terms of a written document but allows exceptions under certain conditions, such as fraud, mistake, or misdescription. The High Court noted that Sections 91 and 92 are based on the “best evidence rule,” which requires that superior evidence (the document itself) be used to prove the terms of a document. However, the Court also recognized the exceptions under proviso (1) of Section 92, which allows oral evidence in cases of fraud, mistake, or misdescription. The Court acknowledged that a mistake in the plot number, as claimed by the petitioner, could be considered a genuine and accidental mistake, thus falling under the exception. The first vendor’s admission of a mistake and the subsequent rectification deed supported the petitioner’s claim of misdescription. Consequently, the High Court held that the petitioner could cross-examine the respondent on the plot’s boundary details to prove the alleged misdescription. Thus, The High Court set aside the Munsif Court’s order, allowing the petitioner to present oral evidence and cross-examine the respondent regarding the misdescription of the plot number in the sale deed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – PRATYASA MISHRA

 

 

0

SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT AND AWARDED THE EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Blog, CIvil Appeal, Indian law, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

DATED ON: OCTOBER 03, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss applications for taking on record their written statements in a civil suit. The court ruled that the 30-day period for filing written statements had expired on 08.03.2020. The court also ruled in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the orders of this that the order dated 23.03.2020, effective from 15.03.2020, would not benefit the applicants/defendants since the limitation period had expired. The court also ruled that the court’s orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only extended the period of limitation, not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff, IL and FS Financial Services Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money and consequential reliefs in C.S. No. 177 of 2019 against nine defendants. The 30-day period for filing written statements expired on 08.03.2020 and the condonable period of 90 days expired on 06.06.2020.

The appellants filed applications for the defendants on 20.01.2021, requesting an extension of the time for the defendants’ written statements. The reasons for this were the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the Government of India’s advisories, the Disaster Management Act, the lockdown imposed by the Government of West Bengal, and the closure of the answering applicant’s office.

The affidavits relied on the court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the period of limitation until further orders. The plaintiffs opposed these applications, arguing that the orders would not help since the limitation period had expired before 15.03.2020. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of 18.09.2020 in Sagufa Ahmed to support its contention. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s stand but did not take the written statements on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article-142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ORDER 5 RULE 1(1): Summons.— When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim

Order 8 Rule 1:Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

ORDER 8 RULE 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

COMMERCIAL COURT ACT:

Section – 16: Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes-

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
  • Whether the appellants are allowed to file the written statement after the expiration the limited time period in the special circumstances or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Counsel for the appellants, used the judgment in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, to argue that extraordinary measures are crucial in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that orders of 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, and 10.07.2020 were addressed in the same In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The court distinguished Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra) in paras 28.1, 28.2 and 33.4 of Prakash Corporates (supra), stating that the period envisaged in the order dated 23.09.2021 should be excluded from computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement. The court ruled that the decision in Sagufa Ahmed is irrelevant to the present case, as the extended period expired on 06.06.2020.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the applicants have forfeited their right to file the written statements and the hon’ble High Court justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and not taking the written statements on record.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for statutes of limitations in cases related to the pandemic. The court took suo motu cognizance and issued orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protecting parties’ rights and ensuring their remedies and defenses were not barred. The orders of 23.03.2020 and 08.03.2021 were issued in a case involving Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until further orders. The court also extended the period between 15.03.2020 and the lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area.

The Supreme Court of India has issued directions to address the challenges faced by litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order dated 08.03.2021 extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law or special laws, with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The court believes that the order dated 15.03.2020 has served its purpose and should come to an end.

The court has also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, allowing the balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020 to become available with effect from 15.03.2021. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will also be excluded from computing periods prescribed under various laws. The government is also required to amend guidelines for containment zones, allowing for medical emergencies, essential goods and services, time-bound applications, and educational and job-related requirements.

The Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will be excluded from computing the period prescribed under various laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This decision has a significant impact on the current controversy, as it excludes the period for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.

The Court in Prakash Corporates (supra) also noted that the order of 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges were not available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed’s case. The outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay is 120 days from the date of summons.

JUDGEMENT:

As has been set out hereinabove, summons was served on 07.02.2020, but the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The applicants filed for written statements and extension of time on 20.01.2021, and the High Court’s judgment needs to be set aside. The principle underlying the court’s orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation would benefit the applicants-defendants.

The Appeals are allowed, and the written statements filed on 20.01.2021, are directed to be taken on record. The suit will proceed with the appeals, and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

HIGH COURT: BEING EMPLOYED IN PAKISTAN DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE ONE A CITIZEN OF PAKISTAN.

Blog, Kerala HC, legal news, News & Media links , , , , , , , , ,

The Custodian of Enemy Property for India has listed up to sixty-eight immovable properties in Kerala as ‘enemy properties,’ and thus, the High Court’s order can alleviate other similar cases as well. undefined

Thiruvananthapuram: In a recent relief to the 74-year-old man from Malappuram in Kerala, the Kerala High Court has set aside the restrictions placed on the property owned by him by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, claiming that the man had purchased the land from his father who used to work in the neighbouring country, Pakistan.

A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham stated in the order produced on Monday that if a person went to an enemy nation in order to find a job, then it could not be assumed that he was a person from enemy nation.

There are as many as 68 immovable properties in Kerala which have been classified by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as ‘enemy properties,’ and thus the HC order may mean relief in other similar cases as well.

P Ummer Koya, a retired police official and a native of Chettippadi in Malappuram challenging the archaic practice when the Parappanangadi village officer in Malappuram rejected his request to pay the land tax of 20. 5 cents of land for which he had recorded from his father Kunji Koya who once worked in Pakistan for few years.

The respective revenue authorities stated that the property in question was taken over under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and was under investigation by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as the petitioner’s father was suspected to be an ‘enemy’ (Pakistan national) as per the definition contained in the said Act and, therefore, the property in question was also considered to be an ‘enemy property’. Hence, on the land, the restriction was imposed by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.

The petitioner Ummer, with advocate M A Asif, argued that his father was born in Malappuram in 1902 and was domiciled in India when the Constitution was enacted in 1950. He visited Pakistan in 1953 in order to search for a job he had been a helper in a hotel in Pakistan for a short period of time.

He also said his father felt threatened by the police when he was still a national of Pakistan and approached the centre to know his citizenship status and the centre advised him that Kunji did not take the Pakistani citizenship willingly, therefore he still remains an Indian citizen. For this reason, the said property could not be rightly regarded as ‘enemy property’ as contended by Ummer’s counsel. Kunji also passed away in India and was buried in Malappuram district.

The court directed that since the father of the petitioner can not be termed as an ‘Enemy’ and his properties can not be termed as ‘Enemy Property’, the restriction imposed on the land should be quashed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

1 2 3 4 … 1,782