CITATION: 2021 Latest Case Law 252 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE A.M KHANWILKAR & JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 03-06-2021
ISSUE:
Whether the
order dated 4.12.2018 passed by the respondents contravened the judgment passed
by this Court which issued directions to comply with the High court judgment,
for deliberate failure to reinstate with continuity of service and to pay
arrears to the petitioners?
JUDGMENT:
In this case, it was held that the respondent’s termination order dated
11.08.2017 contravened the principles of natural justice principles as neither
notice was issued nor an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners was accorded. The contention that the order dated 11.8.2017 was passed
without differentiating the case of tainted and untainted candidates, is
unsustainable and should be set aside.
The respondent
concluded that segregation of tainted candidates from untainted candidates was
impossible due to reasons stated in the termination order dated 02.03.2020,
there was nothing illegal about the respondents issuing the said termination
order without giving the petitioners, and similarly situated persons prior
notice.
According to the Court, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability
of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is a well-established
position that if the termination order is assailed on the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before the
constitutional Court including by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India.
The Court dealt with two sets of contempt petitions: The first set
complaints about non-compliance of order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the High
Court, which came to be upheld by this Court consequent to disposal of special
leave petitions order dated 16.3.2018, and more particularly, reiterated by
this Court in its order dated 15.11.2018 directing the respondents to first comply
with the decision of the High Court dated 28.11.2017 and thereafter proceed in
the matter as per the law by passing a fresh, reasoned order. It is not in
dispute that after the judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018, a consequential
order was passed by the High Court on 26.11.2018. The respondents thus issued an
order dated 4.12.2018, reengaging the petitioners on the concerned posts
without continuity of service and arrears.
It was concluded later, that the second set of contempt petitions dealing with
the termination order dated 02.03.2020, which is in the breach of Court’s
command to offer the petitioners an opportunity to be heard via order of
15.11.2018, must be dismissed.
The Court dismissed Contempt petitions and transfer petitions allowing the
writ petitions to proceed before the High Court in terms of this judgment.
Further, the writ petition was also disposed of with a liberty/leave to prefer
an appropriate remedy before the High Court by way of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
CITATION:
2021 Latest
Case Law 253 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE JUSTICE
UDAY UMESH LALIT & JUSTICE VINEET SARAN.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03-06-2021
ISSUE:
Whether the
information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the
information is credible, etc.
JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court quashed the sedition and other charges. According
to the Bench, “Every journalist is entitled to
the protection under the Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar
(1962
AIR 955) (which
defined the ambit of the offense of sedition under Section 124A IPC).” In the case of Kedar Nath
Singh (1962), the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court made it
clear that “allegedly seditious speech
and expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to
‘violence’, or ‘public disorder'”.
Hence
the Court rejected the second relief of formation of a committee to verify allegations against
journalists before an FIR is lodged as sought by the petitioner. He had said that no
FIR should be registered against a journalist with experience of over 10 years
unless the committee approves it.
JIGYA
YADAV (MINOR) ( THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH) VS. C.B.S.E
CITATION: 2021 Latest Case Law 254 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M KHANWILKAR, MR. JUSTICE B.R.
GAVAI & KRISHNA MURARI
MR. JUSTICE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03-06-2021
ISSUE:
- Whether the writ can be issued against CBSE?
- Whether the recent petition can be challenged the validity of the bye-laws?
JUDGMENT: In this
case, the CBSE Board came to be established vide Government of India Resolution
dated 1.7.1929 with a view to "enable it to play a useful role in the
field of Secondary Education" and "make the services of the Board
available to various educational institutions in the country", as stated
in the Constitution of the Board.
The
Bench held that C.B.S.E. is illegally exercising their powers, constraining it
for the interest of their own efficiency, and causing injustice to the petitioner.
And it was held by the court that was put before them states that, there has
not been an unintentional error on the behalf of the parents of the petitioner
while entering their names in school records.
Therefore
the Court held that the present petition cannot be dealt with the challenge of
the constitutionality of the bye-laws as it is the petitioner’s parents who are
at the fault and this error had been repeated by them multiple times. Court had
also stated that even if in case regulation would have permitted the change,
the changes of name shouldn’t be permitted as they choose to fill those names
on their own.
CITATION: 2021
Latest Case Law 255 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. M.
KHANWILKAR, MR. JUSTICE DINESH
MAHESHWARI AND MR.
JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17-06-2021
ISSUES: The Hon’ble Supreme Court had to deal with the following core issues;
- Whether the goods in question are liable to be confiscated or they could be released with payment of the fine instead of confiscation?
- Whether the goods in question are of the ‘prohibited goods’ category?
The statutes involved in this case are Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign
Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
JUDGMENT: The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed
the Appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court. The Supreme
Court held that the goods in question were to be confiscated with a relaxation
of allowing re-export, on payment of the necessary redemption fine, and subject
to the importer discharging other statutory obligations. If no such option was
exercised within two weeks from the date of the Judgment, then the goods were to
be confiscated absolutely. Further, the Respondent importers were held
responsible for the improper imports and were saddled with heavier costs of
Litigation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
SANJAY PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
CITATION:
Interlocutory Application No. 16706 of 2021 In
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12158 of 202 with 5 other
Interlocutory Application in respective Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(C)] [Non-Reportable]
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE MR. ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28-06-2021
ISSUES: Whether Central Armed Police Forces be given access or be impleaded as parties in the Petitions?
The statutes involved The Central Industrial Security Force (Group ‘A’ Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009, schedule to the Central Reserve Police Border Force Group “A” General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules and Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992 schedule to the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 and IPS (Cadre Rules) 1954.
JUDGMENT:
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Intervention Applications filed by the
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), and Sashastra
Seema Bal (SSB), and directed to add the Applicants as Respondents in the five-set
of Petitions filed by the personnel of different service. The Supreme Court
observed that the applicants wanted to participate in these petitions to
highlight their grievances. If the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are
allowed and the plea of the petitioners for excluding deputed personnel from
the senior administrative posts of the respective CAPFs is accepted, then it
would have an impact on the upper reaches of the service avenues of the IPS
officers.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. VS. LEESAMMA JOSEPH
CITATION:
2021 latest Case Law 257 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND JUSTICE MR. R. SUBHASH
REDDY
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 28-06-2021
ISSUES:
- Whether the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 mandates reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities?
- Whether reservation under Section 33 of the Act depends on the identification of posts as stipulated by Section 32?
- Whether a promotion can be denied to a PwD in absence of a provision in the Rules for reservation in promotion for PwD?
JUDGMENT:
“…… the course of action followed by
the High Court in the impugned order is salutary and does not call for any
interference. ……” - The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India appreciated the decision
of the learned High Court of Kerala.
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the
learned High Court of Kerala which granted relief to Respondent by emphasizing
the ratio of Siddaraju vs.State of
Karnataka & Ors. [2020 3
SCALE 99] wherein it was affirmed that the reservation was applicable in promotions
to the PwD and the ratio of Indra
Sawhney's case was distinguished. The Supreme Court issued directions
to the State of Kerala to implement Rajeev
Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Ors [(2016) 13 SCC 153] and Siddaraju
vs.State of Karnataka & Ors. [2020
3 SCALE 99] Judgments which ruled that persons having a physical disability
could be granted reservation in promotion. The Court further directed to
provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts
and such exercise to be completed within a period of three months so that the
mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by taking recourse to excuse of
Section 32 for not having identified the post.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
SHAIK AHMED VS. STATE OF TELANGANA
CITATION:
2021 Latest Case Law 256 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.
ASHOK BHUSHAN AND JUSTICE MR. R. SUBHASH REDDY.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 28-06-2021
ISSUES:
- What are the essential ingredients of Section 346A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) which are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution for securing the conviction of an accused under Section 364A IPC?
- Whether each ingredient under Section 364A needs to be proved to secure a conviction under Section 364A and non-establishment of any of the conditions may vitiate the conviction under Section 364A IPC?
- Whether the Sessions court and the High Court, recorded any finding that all ingredients of Section 364A were proved by the prosecution?
- Whether there was any evidence or findings placed on record which proved that the accused had threatened to cause death or hurt to the victim or his conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the victim may be hurt or put to death?
JUDGMENT: The Hon’ble Supreme Court partly
allowed the Appeal and set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Section
364A of IPC on the ground that one of the requisite conditions, i.e. “threatens
to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt” was not established to prove the offense
under the said Section. However, the Court held Appellant guilty for kidnapping
the victim for ransom under section 363 of IPC. Further, the court modified the
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and the Appellant was
sentenced to imprisonment for a term of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
STATE OF
ODISHA AND ORS. VS. ORISSA PRIVATE ENGINEERING COLLEGE ASSOCIATION (OPECA) AND
ANR.
CITATION: Civil
Appeal No. 2274 of 2021] [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5014 of 2021]
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. DHANANJAYA Y
CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN, AND JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29-06-2021
ISSUES: Whether the benefit of the circular issued by the All India
Council for Technical Education granting relaxation in eligibility criteria and
admitting the students pursuing the PGDM/MBA courses based on the marks scored
by the aspirants in the qualifying examination, should be extended to the
admissions for the B. Tech (Engineering) degree course in the wake of COVID 19
Pandemic?
JUDGMENT: The
Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal setting aside the decision of the
High Court which was based on the misconception of section 3(1) of Odisha
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of
Fees) Act 2007. The Court held that it would be unmindful not to consider the
impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court while setting the legal position
directed that, for the current year, the admission which has been granted by
the institutions to 592 students under direct entry and 243 students under
lateral entry to the B.Tech degree courses shall not be disturbed. The Court
took into account the overwhelming hardships faced by the students in the
Covid-19 pandemic.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ETC.WITH M/S. KHYAATI ENGINEERING VS. PRODIGY HYDROPOWER PVT. LTD.
CITATION: 2021
Latest Case Law 258 SC; Civil Appeal
Nos. 1620- 1622 of 2021.
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN AND JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 29-06-2021
ISSUES:
- Whether the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, apply to arbitration proceedings instituted under Section 18(3) of MSMED Act, 2006?
- Whether counterclaim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings?
JUDGMENT: The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals and held that the appellant is not
entitled to invoke the provisions of Chapter V and seek reference to
arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act, 2006). It affirmed the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, ruling that section 43 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 expressly implies the application of the
Limitation Act, 1963. Further Section 18(3) of the (MSMED Act, 2006),
facilitates the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to take the route
of arbitration, in case of failure of the Conciliation proceedings, thus making
Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to arbitrations covered by Section 18(3) of
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
The Court
also held that the counterclaim was maintainable before the statutory
authorities under MSMED Act. The MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have
an overriding effect vis-Ã -vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is
a general Act. The MSMED Act 2006 being beneficial legislation allows the buyer
as well as the seller to file its claim/counterclaim before the appropriate
authority.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
BIKRAM CHATTERJI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
CITATION: 2021 Latest Case law 259 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY UMESH
LALIT AND JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 29-06-2021
ISSUES:
- Whether La-Residentia Developers Private Limited to be declared as part of the Amrapali Group of Companies?
- Whether the entire ‘Amrapali La Residentia’ project, to be handed over to NBCC (India) Limited?
The Statutes involved in this case
are the Companies Act 2013, Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and
Housing Laws.
JUDGMENT: The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed three sets of Interim Applications viz, i) I.A.
No.168186 of 2018, I.A. No.109882 of 2020, and I.A. No.114865 of 2020 (Z-318)
filed by the Amrapali La Residentia Flat Buyers Association and by some
applicants who have booked apartments in the project developed by the
La-Residentia Developers Private Limited; ii) I.A. No.153341 of 2019, I.A.
No.120307 of 2020 and I.A.No.123299 of 2020 filed by the Company; iii)
I.A.No.6397 of 2021 filed by Religare Finvest Limited, the creditor of the
Company, in Writ Petition No. 940/2017. The Court held that it would be unjust
and improper to hand over the development to NBCC as it would result in an escalation
in costs to the detriment of the flat buyers.
The Supreme Court laid down the following direction to be followed:
- The Company to continue with the construction and development of the instant project;
- 632 flats to be sold by the Company to the interested parties at a fair or value with adherence to conditions.
- The injunction order issued concerning 632 flats stands modified.
- The difference between the amount received from the flat buyers, for the purchase of said 632 flats and the expenditure incurred on the cost of construction to be credited to the general account maintained for the benefit of the flat buyers of the Amrapali Group of Companies.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
G. MOHAN RAO AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
CITATION: 2021 Latest Caselaw 260 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR AND JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29-06-2021
ISSUES:
- Whether the State legislature had legislative competence to enact the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019, a retrospective validating Act?
- Whether the State legislature was beyond the limits of its legislative competence by enacting the 2019 Act thereby overruling the judgment of the High Court?
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 Act, and Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, again contravened Article 254 of the Constitution of India on account of being repugnant to the 2013 Act, owing to the date of retrospective commencement of the 2019 Act?
JUDGMENT: The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the batch of Writ Petitions and held the Tamil Nadu Land
Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and, Validation) Act, 2019, was
a legitimate legislative exercise and consistent with Article 254 of the
Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court
observed that the impugned Act was a validation Act i.e., an Act that validates
something invalid in the eyes of law, and to make validation effective, it has
been given a retrospective effect by the State. The court emphasized Paragraph
15 of the Judgment in the case of Pt.
Rishikesh & Anr. vs. Salma Begum, which stated that “Clause (2) of
Article 254 is an exception to clause (1). If the law made by the State
Legislature is reserved for consideration and receives the assent of the
President, though the State law is inconsistent with the Central Act, the law
made by the Legislature of the State prevails over the Central law and operates
in that State as valid law”.
IN RE: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS WITHBANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
CITATION: 2021
Latest Caselaw 261 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE ASHOK
BHUSHAN AND
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29-06-2021
ISSUES: This matter was a Suo-Moto Petition raised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India taking cognizance of the plight of the migrant laborers in the wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic which discussed the following social reliefs
- Entitlement of dry ration by migrant workers who are not covered by the National Food and who do not possess ration cards.
- The implementation of the “One Nation One Ration Card” by States and Union Territories.
- Coverage of Rural and Urban population under National Food Security Act, 2013.
- Community Kitchen for Migrant Labourers by States/Union Territories.
- Direct Bank Transfer to unorganized workers, etc.
The provisions of law and the statutes related to this case are Article
21 of Constitution of India, National Food Security Act, 2013, Inter-State
Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979,
Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act,
1996 and Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008.
JUDGMENT: The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and taking Suo Moto Cognizance of the problems and miseries of the migrant laborers, issued the following directions:
- To develop the Portal in consultation with NIC for registration of the unorganized laborers/migrant workers, complete the process of Portal for registration under National Database for Unorganized Workers and implement the same by all means 31.07.2021.
- To allocate and distribute food grains as per the demand of additional food grains from the States for disbursement of dry food grains to migrant laborers.
- To implement an appropriate scheme for the distribution of dry ration to migrant laborers.
- To run community kitchens at prominent places which are inhabited by a large number of Migrant Labourers, etc.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
SURENDRAN
VS. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CITATION: 2021 Latest Case Law 262 SC
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE ASHOK
BHUSHAN, JUSTICE VINEET SHARAN, AND JUSTICE M.R. SHAH.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30-06-2021
ISSUES:
- Whether the trial court erred in Convicting the Appellant/Accused?
- Whether Conviction Sentence can be Substituted?
JUDGMENT: The Hon’ble Supreme Court partly
allowed the Appeal and affirmed the decision of the Trial Court, being not
erred in Conviction. However, the Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial
court as 26 years had elapsed for the incident. The Court substituted the
sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code, into a fine of Rs.1000/- each, and a sentence of fine under Section
337 IPC was maintained. The Appellant/Accused was further directed to deposit a
fine of Rs.1000+1000 = Rs.2000/, within a period of one month in the Trial
Court.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
REEPAK KANSAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. WITH GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
CITATION:
2021 Latest Case Law 263 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN AND JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 30-06-2021
ISSUES: Whether the families of such persons
who lost their life due to the Covid-19 pandemic are entitled to ex-gratia
monetary compensation or notified in view of Section 12 of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005?
JUDGMENT:
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and ruled that the
provisions of Section 12 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 has to be applied to
the Covid-19 pandemic which is declared as a “notified disaster”/national
disaster. Further, National Authority has failed to perform its statutory duty
cast under Section 12 as there is nothing on record that proves that any
decision/guidelines has/have been issued by the National Authority for
ex-gratia assistance on account of loss of life due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
Supreme Court also directed the appropriate authority to simplify the procedure
for obtaining a death certificate and mentioning the cause of death on the
certificate.
R. JANAKIAMMAL VS. S.K. KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS. WITH S.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ANOTHER VS. S.K. KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS.
CITATION: 2021
Latest Case Law 264 SC
BENCH:
HON’BLE
JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN AND JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 30-06-2021
ISSUES: Whether, all three branches were part of a joint family, at
the time when Tatabad house was acquired by Defendant No.1or all the three
branches continued to be separate from each other after partition dated
07.11.1960?
JUDGMENT: The Hon’ble Supreme Court Partly
allowed the Appeal whereby the Suit was decreed to the extent of grant of
partition of Tatabad residential property.
The Court held that all three branches have an equal share in the
Tatabad residential property and there is no bar in seeking partition of the
said property by the plaintiff since it being not a part of O.S.No.37 of 1984.
Accordingly, plaintiff/defendant No.7, defendant No.1, and defendant No.4 were
entitled to 1/3rd share jointly in the said property. The Supreme Court
Observed that in 1979, when the Tatabad residential property was acquired, all
the three branches were joint and the said property was acquired for the
benefit of all branches. The real intent of the three branches to partition
their properties was to escape from the application of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
on Land) Act, 1961.
To Read Full Judgement, Click Here
Relevant Links:
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of January 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of February 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of March 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of April 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of May 2021, Click Here
About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Sonakshi Verma, law graduate from Babu Banarasi Das University and is an Intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at sonakshiverma0403@gmail.com and by Ms. Diksha Anil Faterpekar, who has completed her LLM in 2017 & LLB (Hon.) in 2013 and is an intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at jan311991@gmail.com
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments