That's great. I am very happy at the turn of events. Let the tribe of lawyers like Mr. S.B. Tripathi increase more and more. more  

Tripathiji, I am greatly obligated to you for offering to look into my cases to explore possibilities to get me justice and without charging any fee. Let me know where I can meet you in person and the convenient time in a given day. My email id is cosmozone@hotmail.com and can be reached on 9871217174. Thank you and God bless you. more  

Dear Mr. Ramakrishna, I find your cases peculiar and challenging for me. I would love to see your files, if you do not mind, and to find if anything can be done in the matter for you. My services will be free. more  

Thank you Tripathiji, Inherent flaws, as attributed by you, in my cases: A: In 138 case, (a) complaint details Accused no. 1 as the accused company but the memo did not list the company as accused. As my lawyer did not show any inclination to further the matter, I sought from the court to amend the memo in 2008 which the court disallowed (recently I learnt that Cr.P.C. provides for such an amendment at any stage of the case during the proceedings but before the final order is delivered. b) application by accused to dismiss the case as company is not made party was dismissed by the court in 2009 as not maintainable and unwarranted and accused did not go for any appeal to HC even when the same order gave them the liberty. c) MD of the company as an accused stated while answering charge in 2008 that (i) cheque was issued for liability to pay, (b) cheque got dishonored for insufficient funds, (c) notice of dishonor received and (d) payment not made despite the notice u/s 138. d) The case saw four judges changing during the four years and the last judge dismissed the complaint on his very second sitting on the case stating a SC order that says Directors can not be prosecuted u/s 138 when company is not made an accused ...??? HERE s. 138 clearly states that any one or all of the persons can be prosecuted and also goes on to explain what 'company' means, which is a body formed by directors. NOWHERE DOES THE s. 138 OR NI ACT FOR THAT MATTER SAYS THAT DIRECTORS CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED IF COMPANY IS NOT MADE AN ACCUSED. UNDER WHAT LAW SC SAYS DIRECTORS CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED u/s 138 WHEN COMPANY IS NOT MADE A PARTY EVEN WHEN THE SECTION STATES CLEARLY THAT ANYONE OR ALL CAN BE PROSECUTED? IS IT NOT A PUNISHMENT ON VICTIM OF UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS DRAWING CHEQUES AND UNDER LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST? B) The consumer court matter was against a bank, insurance co. (group co. of the bank) and their DSA. a) DSA (ex-parte) collected 9.54 lacs instead of 8.81 lacs and did not refund the excess amount which the CF did not feel as defficiency or negligence, b) bank insisted on insuring loan against risk of inability to pay and got the premium collected but mocked a process of police through its group insurance company which does not have any such product to cover the risk of inability to pay whereas its another group company had the specific insurance which the bank deliberately evaded. AND CF, ST. COM., N. COM. opined that banks can seek any condition. c) insurance co. filed photocopy of an alleged application which was meant for a loan co-applicant when in fact loan did not have any loan co-applicant which were strongly objected to by complainant as fake, fabricated and forged and that no such co-applicant exists AND CF, ST. COM., N. COMM. ruled that the alleged application form bears signature although claimed by complainant as forged and because of the signature present the insurance co. or bank are not deficient, negligent or employed restrictive trade practices. d) CF took 2 years to dismiss complaint, St.COM AND N. COM REJECTED APPEALS WITHOUT EVEN ADMITTING. So, these, if are the inherent flaws in the cases, then the judiciary is a great body to practice illegality by ignoring provisions of law and favoring influential entities and persons to punish victim for sin not committed and under law that does not exist. more  

So sorry Mr. Ramakrishna. It appears that there is some inherrent flaw in your cases or there has been mishandling of your cases. Never blame the judiciary. How case is handled is also crucial. more