0

Preserving Academic Integrity: Supreme Court Vindicates University Selection Processes

Case Title: Meher Fatima Hussain Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023

Dated on: April 15, 2024

Coram: J. Abhay S. Oka, J. Pankaj Mithal

Facts:

In this case, Meher Fatima Hussain and two other appellants challenged their dismissal from academic positions at Jamia Millia Islamia University. Sabiha Hussain was initially appointed as a Reader and later promoted to Professor and Director at the Sarojini Naidu Centre, following a due selection process. Despite this, the university did not regularize her position, leading to her removal and subsequent legal challenge. Meher Fatima Hussain, initially appointed as a Lecturer, faced a similar situation when her probationary post was converted to a temporary post, and she was later appointed as an Associate Professor. Suraiya Tabassum was appointed as an Assistant Professor on a tenure post. All appellants faced termination and challenged their dismissals in court, arguing that their appointments were regular and lawful. The High Court initially dismissed their petitions, leading to the current appeals in the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Appellants:

The appellants contended that their appointments at Jamia Millia Islamia University were made following a proper and regular selection process as per the university’s statutes. They argued that their appointments were not irregular or ad-hoc, as wrongly concluded by the High Court, which had erroneously applied the law from the State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi case. Further, the appellants maintained that they met all the necessary qualifications and criteria, and were selected by duly constituted Selection Committees, and their positions were sanctioned posts. They also highlighted that the UGC had approved the regularization of such appointments if made through proper selection procedures. Therefore, the appellants argued that their termination and the university’s refusal to regularize their appointments were unjustified and unlawful.

Contention of the Respondent:

The respondents, representing Jamia Millia Islamia University, contended that the appellants’ appointments were irregular and not in compliance with the required statutory and procedural norms. They argued that the appointments were temporary or ad-hoc and subject to the continuation of specific schemes or plans, such as the UGC’s XII plan period. The university emphasized that the posts held by the appellants were not regularized due to the temporary nature of the schemes under which they were appointed. They further argued that the High Court correctly applied the principles laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and that the appellants’ appointments could not be regularized as they did not meet the necessary legal and procedural requirements.

Court’s Analysis & Judgement:

The Court judiciously analysed the facts of the case and considered the contentions of both the appellants and the respondents. It examined the procedural aspects of the appointments, including the selection processes followed by the university and the nature of the posts held by the appellants. After thorough deliberation, the Court concluded that the appointments of the appellants were made through proper selection processes and were not irregular. It noted that the appellants had been serving in their respective positions for a significant period and had met the necessary qualifications. Additionally, the Court considered the correspondence from the University Grants Commission (UGC), indicating that the appointments could be regularized if made through a regular selection process. Based on these findings, the Court held that the High Court had erred in dismissing the appeals and upheld the appellants’ contentions. Therefore, it set aside the impugned judgments and granted relief to the appellants, reinstating their positions.

“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- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to Read the Judgement

0

Supreme Court on Electricity Tariffs: No Additional Reliability Charge for Continuous Process Industries

Case title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. VS M/s JSW Steel Ltd. & Anr.

Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8413 OF 2009

Order on: 17 May, 2024

Qoram: HONOURABLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA WITH HONOURABLE  JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Fact of the case:

The appellant is Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., a company responsible for distributing and supplying electricity across Maharashtra. The 1st respondent is M/s JSW Steel Ltd., a large steel industry and significant consumer of electricity supplied by the appellant. In a tariff order dated 20th October 2006, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission imposed additional supply charges for uninterrupted power supply to bulk consumers, including the 1st respondent. This order was later discontinued by another tariff order on 20th June 2008, which also directed the appellant to refund the additional supply charges collected during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The appellant filed a petition with the Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking approval to recover reliability charges for implementing Zero Load Shedding (ZLS) in the Pen Circle area. A public hearing was conducted, and the Commission approved the petition on 15th June 2009, imposing the reliability charge from 16th June 2009 to 31st March 2010 on all consumers in the area, including the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent appealed against the Commission’s order to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which set aside the Commission’s order. The appellant then brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues framed by court:

  • Whether the 1st respondent was liable to pay the reliability charge.

Legal provisions:

  • Section 62(3) of Electricity Act, 2003: Deals with the determination of tariffs by the Commission and the conditions under which different tariffs can be imposed for different consumer classes.
  • Section 111 of Electricity Act, 2003: Which provides the right to appeal against the orders of the Commission to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.

 Contentions of Appellant:

The appellant argued that the imposition of a reliability charge was legal and within the powers of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003. They pointed out that similar charges were already being levied in other areas like Pune, Baramati, Vashi, and Thane. They claimed that the 1st respondent did not participate in the public hearing about the reliability charge, implying that they had given their consent to pay the charge. The appellant argued that if the respondent had any objections, they should have raised them during the hearing. The appellant stated that the 1st respondent benefited from uninterrupted power supply due to ZLS and thus was rightly liable to pay the reliability charge. They emphasized that this charge was for a limited period and that the 1st respondent, being a major consumer, should have participated in the public hearing. The appellant noted that the 1st respondent consumed about 45% of the electricity in the Pen Circle area and should, therefore, be subjected to the same reliability charge as other HT industrial consumers in similar areas.

Contentions of Respondents:

The 1st respondent argued that they were already paying a higher tariff because they were classified as a continuous process industry. They contended that this higher tariff was meant to cover the cost of uninterrupted power supply, making the additional reliability charge unnecessary and unjustified. The respondent rebutted the claim that they did not raise objections, pointing out that the Vidharba Industries Association, of which they were a member, had filed an affidavit raising objections during the public hearing. The 1st respondent asserted their right to appeal the Commission’s order under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, arguing that being directly affected by the charge gave them the locus standi (the right to bring the case) regardless of their participation in the public hearing.

 Court analysis & Judgement:

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondent that the higher tariff already compensated for the uninterrupted power supply. This higher rate was set specifically for continuous process industries like the 1st respondent and made the additional reliability charge redundant. The court found no statutory basis in the Electricity Act, 2003, or any rules or regulations that supported the imposition of the reliability charge. The appellant failed to demonstrate how the charge was justified under the existing legal framework. The court acknowledged that the Vidharba Industries Association, which represented the 1st respondent, had indeed raised objections during the public hearing. This participation was sufficient to preserve the 1st respondent’s right to challenge the reliability charge. The court upheld the respondent’s right to appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It clarified that non-participation in a public hearing did not negate their right to appeal if they were directly affected by the Commission’s order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., agreeing with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. The court ruled that the 1st respondent should not be subjected to the reliability charge since they were already paying a higher tariff for uninterrupted power supply. The imposition of the reliability charge was deemed unjustified and unsupported by any statutory provision.

“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- Antara Ghosh

Click to view the full judgement

0

The Patna High Court sentenced on Equivalence of B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) Degrees in Recruitment Criteria

Case Title: Mini Agarwal v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others.

Case No.:   15933/ 2023

Dated on: 29th May 2024

Coram: Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

FACTS OF THE CASE

the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Govt. Engineering Colleges, against the vacancy advertised by the Bihar Public Service Commission, vide advertisement no. 63/2020. After scrutiny, the petitioner was found eligible and was allowed to appear in written (objective) competitive examination and accordingly, the concerned Authority issued Admit Card of the petitioner bearing Roll No. 630278. she appeared in the written examination and was successful, proceeding to the interview stage. which was scheduled to be conducted on 12.04.2023. This petitioner has appeared before the Interview Board on the scheduled date and time along with relevant documents. After the interview, the petitioner discovered she had been awarded “0” marks for her graduation percentage because she held a B.Sc. (Physics) degree rather than a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree. The BPSC cited the requirement of a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree for awarding marks in this category. Subsequently, she sought some information from Department of Science and Technology & B.P.S.C. under RTI and filed representation before the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission and requested to review the relevant documentation and policies to ensure a fair assessment of her qualifications and consider her B.Sc.(Physics) degree as valid. Her requests were not addressed, leading her to file the present writ petition.

ISSUES

  • Whether the petitioner’s B.Sc. (Physics) degree should be considered equivalent to a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree for the purpose of awarding marks in the recruitment process for Assistant Professor as per UGC notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) and the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020:

  • Table-1: Specifies the qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professor in Engineering and Technology, and in Humanities and Science.
  • Table-2: Provides the weightage scheme for direct appointments to the post of Assistant Professor, specifying that candidates with a B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degree are eligible for a 5% weightage for graduation marks.

 UGC Notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) dated July 5, 2014:

  • This notification deals about the specified degree and talks about degree like B.Sc./B.Sc. (Hons.). It means the degrees are treating in same fashion. As such, there should be treated to be one of the specified under graduate degree for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor in Bihar Engineering College

 UGC Notification F.1-2/2017(EC/PS) dated July 18, 2018:

  • Specifies the minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges. The petitioner referenced this notification to argue that it does not differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) for shortlisting candidates.

 Advertisement No. 63/2020 by BPSC:

  • Specifies the eligibility criteria and weightage scheme for the recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government Engineering Colleges, including the requirement for a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree to receive marks for the graduation percentage.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner contended that her B.Sc. (Physics) should be considered equivalent to a B.Sc. Hons.  degree based on the UGC notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) dated July 5, 2014, which does not differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees, treats them in the same manner. Also, UGC notification F.1-2/2017(EC/PS) dated July 18, 2018, which specifies the minimum qualifications for teaching positions and does not distinguish between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees. She argues that the BPSC’s action is contrary to these UGC regulations.  As per the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, and the UGC guidelines, her B.Sc. degree should make her eligible for the 5% weightage in graduation marks, which was denied to her by the BPSC. The petitioner points out that in previous BPSC advertisements, such as advertisement no. 19/2020 for the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges, marks were awarded for B.Sc. degrees irrespective of whether they were Hons. or not. She argues that the current practice of denying marks for her B.Sc. degree is inconsistent and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that despite filing representations and requests for reconsideration to the Secretary of the BPSC and the Department of Science and Technology, her qualifications were not fairly assessed, and no action was taken in her favour. She argues that the recruitment process should be fair and not disadvantage her based on a technical distinction between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees, especially when UGC guidelines and previous BPSC practices did not make such a distinction, and thus, her B.Sc. degree should be considered valid for awarding the 5% graduation weightage as per the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents argue that the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, explicitly require a B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degree for awarding the 5% weightage in graduation marks. Since the petitioner holds a B.Sc. degree without honors, she does not qualify for these marks. They maintain that the advertisement no. 63/2020 for the recruitment of Assistant Professors was issued in compliance with the requisition sent by the Department of Science and Technology and follows the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. Therefore, the recruitment process, including the qualification criteria, is legally valid and binding. The respondents emphasize that Table-2 of the Appendix-1 of the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, prescribes that the weightage for graduation marks is specifically for candidates with B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degrees. Hence, the petitioner’s B.Sc. (Physics) degree does not meet this requirement. While the respondents acknowledge the mark distribution scheme adopted for appointment of lecturers allowed marks for B.Sc. degrees irrespective of honors, the assert that the recruitment criteria for the post of Assistant Professor are different and more stringent, which justifies the distinction made in the current advertisement. BPSC has the authority and discretion to interpret and implement the rules as laid out in the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. The decision to award “0” marks for the petitioner’s B.Sc. degree is in accordance with these rules and as far as the issue of reconsideration is concerned, the representations of the petitioners were duly reviewed but found to be without merit based on the explicit requirements of the advertisement and the rules. Therefore, no changes were made in her favour. One point unites all of the respondents’ arguments: the hiring process was carried out in a lawful and equitable manner, abiding by the established weighting schemes and criteria. The petitioner’s writ application is without merit because her qualifications did not match the required standards.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court upheld the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, which clearly differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees for awarding weightage marks in the recruitment process. The court emphasized that the rules explicitly prescribe a maximum 5% weightage for graduation marks only to candidates with B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degrees. The Coury stated that the BPSC’s advertisement no. 63/2020 was in consonance with the requisition sent by the Department of Science and Technology and complied with the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. The educational qualifications and weightage scheme provided in the advertisement were found to be lawful and appropriately applied. The court gave importance to the precedent requirements laid down in the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020 to be binding for the recruitment process and rejected the petitioner’s argument that her B.Sc. degree should be treated as equivalent to a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree based on UGC notifications and noted that even though there were some inconsistency in the previous advertisements,  The current recruitment criteria for Assistant Professor are distinct and justified by the need for more stringent qualifications. The court concluded that the recruitment process was conducted fairly and legally, adhering strictly to the rules and guidelines. The BPSC’s decision to award “0” marks for the petitioner’s graduation percentage was found to be in accordance with the advertised criteria. Based on the above rationale the court dismissed the writ application, stating that the petitioner’s B.Sc. degree does not qualify for the weightage marks as per the prescribed rules, and thus, there is no merit in her claims.

“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

The Supreme Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party.

Case title: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1717-1718 of 2020)

Dated on: 30th April 2024

Quorum: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

FACTS OF THE CASE

A recent case, outlined in the judgment, underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly concerning the substitution of legal representatives in pending cases.

The case revolves around a civil suit concerning a property dispute in Bihar. Swami Shivdharmanand was one of the defendants in the suit. After his demise, the question arose regarding the substitution of his legal representative in the ongoing second appeal before the Patna High Court.

Two individuals, Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand, claimed to be the rightful successors to Swami Shivdharmanand’s position. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives. However, this decision was challenged, leading to a remand by the Supreme Court for the High Court to reconsider the matter.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court upheld Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, dismissing the claim of Swami Triyoganand. Dissatisfied with this decision, Swami Vedvyasanand, who claimed through Swami Triyoganand, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the procedural nuances involved in determining legal representation. While the substitution of legal representatives is crucial for the continuity of legal proceedings, it does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, it merely allows representation of the deceased’s estate in ongoing litigation.

The Court referred to Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party. Moreover, the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the appellate court to refer the matter to a subordinate court for factual inquiry, whose findings are then considered by the appellate court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj, the appellant, contested the order of the High Court, which substituted Swami Satyanand as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal. The appellant, through detailed contentions, argued that the High Court’s decision to reject his substitution application and uphold Swami Satyanand’s representation was procedurally flawed.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the legal provisions governing the substitution of parties upon the death of a litigant. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process, the Court highlighted the limited purpose of substitution, which is to ensure the continuity of proceedings, rather than conferring any substantive rights.

Citing the precedent set in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, the Court reiterated that the determination of legal representation is crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. However, this determination does not grant any proprietary rights to the substituted party.

The Court noted the erroneous interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 by the High Court and criticized its failure to consider the objections raised against the Trial Court’s report. Additionally, the Court clarified that the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the Appellate Court to consider the findings of the subordinate court while making an independent decision on substitution.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, claiming to be successors to the deceased Swami Shivdharmanand, sought substitution in the pending appeal. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives, leading to subsequent legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s intervention was sought to clarify the correct procedure for determining legal representation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC reads as follows: Determination of question as to legal representative. — Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court.

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.

ISSUE

  • The primary issue revolved around the correct procedure for substituting legal representatives in a pending appeal, particularly concerning conflicting claims.
  • Whether the High Court adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while determining legal representation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the procedural lapses in the High Court’s decision-making process. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties to present their claims.

The Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party. It underscored the discretionary power of the Appellate Court to consider evidence and objections before making a conclusive decision on substitution.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It reiterated the procedural lapses observed and emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions. The Court clarified that its decision pertained solely to procedural irregularities and refrained from opining on the substantive merits of the claims.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

0

“Supreme Court Rules Out Easement by Necessity in Presence of Alternative Property Access”

Case title: Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. V. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 9643 Of 2010

Dated on: 10th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the legal realm, disputes often arise over property rights, particularly when it comes to access and usage of shared pathways or roads. The case of Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors., hereafter referred to as the Gala case, delves into the intricacies of easementary rights over a 20ft. wide road situated on land owned by the respondents, the Ramani family. The Supreme Court of India, through its judgment dated April 10, 2024, provided a detailed analysis of the facts, submissions, issues, and the ultimate legal decision.

The dispute revolves around a 20ft. wide road located on Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1, presently owned by the Ramani family. The appellants, Gala family, claimed easementary rights over this road for access to their property, Survey No. 48 Hissa No.15. The Gala family argued that they had been using the road for many years and that their access to their land depended solely on this pathway. The case stemmed from two separate suits: Suit No.14 of 1994 filed by Joki Woler Ruzer (later succeeded by Mahendra Gala and then the Gala family) for declaration of easementary rights, and Suit No.7 of 1996 filed by the Ramani family to declare the Gala family’s lack of rights over the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, represented by senior counsel Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, contended that the Gala family’s usage of the road for many years granted them easementary rights. They also argued that the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994, transferring land to Mahendra Gala, acknowledged their right of way over the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by counsel Shri Devansh Anoop Mohta, disputed the Gala family’s claims, asserting that they had no legal right to the road.

ISSUE

  • Whether the appellants have acquired easementary rights over the disputed road.
  • Whether the findings of the lower courts were valid and justifiable.
  • Whether the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994 conferred easementary rights.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court analyzed the evidence presented and legal precedents. It concluded that the appellants failed to establish uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years, a requirement for acquiring easementary rights by prescription. The Sale Deed did not confer such rights, as the appellants’ predecessors did not possess them. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument of easementary rights by necessity, as there was an alternative access route available. It upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appellants’ appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the appellants had not acquired easementary rights over the disputed road. The judgement reaffirmed the principle that factual findings of lower courts can be reviewed by appellate courts, and highlighted the importance of clear evidence in establishing legal rights.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click the Link to View Judgement