top of page
Search

n244 Form submitted in respect of the £100 Court Fee already paid to HMCTS for Appeal on E35YM660

Writer's picture: shanpanigrahi3000shanpanigrahi3000

n244 Form submitted in respect of the £100 Court Fee already paid to HMCTS for Appeal on E35YM660

Inbox

from: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>

to: centrallondondjskel@justice.gov.uk

date: 18 Nov 2021, 21:37

subject: n244 Form submitted in respect of the £100 Court Fee already paid to HMCTS for Appeal on E35YM660

mailed-by: gmail.com

To

Central London County Court

Dear Sirs

Please find attached an n244 Form together with skeleton arguments:

n244 (Recuse JudgeParfitt)18 Nov2021.pdf

ToMrForzKhan18Nov2021.docx

CentralLondonCountyCourtOrderonE35YM660dated19January2021_receivedbyClaimantfirstat9.27amon22mARCH2021.9pdf


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Tel: 07967789619


3 Attachments

(a) n244 (Recuse JudgeParfitt)18 Nov2021.pdf




(a) Contents:

I have been advised by my legal representative ~~~Cherie that HHJ Parfitt should have recused himself prior to the Hearing and Order of 19 January 2021 in respect of this Claim so that the Order and the subsequent Order of District Judge Lightman dated 21 June 2021 should be quashed as having no value or merit in law. A fresh Hearing should be announced for the Trial of the Prime Minister now Mr Boris Johnson to address the Claim of the Claimant with an Order to the Defendant to lift the suspension of communications with me as the Defendant in order to present the substantive skeleton arguments to the Circuit Judge who has been kept informed of subsequent proceedings my me. The Court Fee for this N244 form of £100 has already been paid.


The Claimant contends that the appropriate procedures of vetting the selection of Judge has not been followed by the Central London County Court and His Honour Judge N Parfitt should either have recused himself or another Circuit Judge should have been selected for the Hearing of 19 January 2021 with its Order that reached the Claimant.

The Claimant having ascertained through probing the Constitution of the United Kingdom over the past two years should have the opportunity to prepare fresh Particulars of Claim for the consideration of the now Prime Minister Mr Boris Johnson, and pending these proceedings a Court Order should be issued for the Defendant to refund to the Claimant the sum of £4170 erroneously awarded to the Defendant.


The full considerations are attached as a skeleton argument.


(b) ToMrForzKhan18Nov2021.docx :




(c) CentralLondonCountyCourtOrderonE35YM660dated19January2021_receivedbyClaimantfirstat9.27amon22mARCH2021.9pdf




Contents:

General Form of Judgement of Order

In the County Court at Central London

Claim Number E35YM660

Date: 19 January 2021

(Sealed The County Court)

Dr SHANTANU PANIGRAHI 1st Claimant Ref

MRS THERESA MAY – PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1st Defendenat Ref Z1819776/TBL/A4

Before His Honour Judge Parfitt sitting at the County Court at Central London, Central London, R.C.J, Thomas More Building, Royal Courts Of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL.

On the Court hearing the Appellant but the Appellant withdrawing from the telephone hearing after making his submissions and on the Appellant’s request to reconsider the permission to appeal refused by Letham by order dated 30 September 2019

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The request to reconsider permission is refused.

2. The Appellant’s application was totally without merit: the DDJ’s order was wholly appropriate as a case management order and the stated grounds of appeal that the Appellant lacked access to legal advice was hopeless and the oral argument put forward that the DDJ was a liar acting as part of a conspiracy to silence the Appellant was absurd (both in its premise and in its substance – since the order under appeal gave the Appellant a final chance to make his particulars of claim good).

3. The Respondent’s application for costs of the action must be referred to a DJ pursuant to CPR 3.5(2)(a) and the Respondent’s letter dated 13 January 2021 and two costs schedules containthe Appeal bundle (in pdf format) shall be treated as an application in that respect.

4. The Respondent’s costs of the appeal are to be treated as Respondent’s costs in the action.

Dated 19 January 2021

In compliance with GDPR requirements, the privacy notice sets out the standards that you can expect from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) when we process personal data about you in the context of civil court proceedings; how you can get access to a copy of your personal data; and what you can do if you think the standards are bit being met. Please see link below foe further information: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter#hmcts-privacy-policy

__________________________________________________________________________________The court office at the County Court at Central London,Central London, R.C. Thomsas More Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Tel: 0380 123 5577 Fax: 0870 739 4144 (GOLD FAX). Check if you can issue your claim online. It will save you time and money.Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk to find out more. Produced by L. Alfonso CJR065C

N24 General Form of Judgment of Order

__________________________________________________________________________________

from: Central London DJSKEL <centrallondondjskel@justice.gov.uk>

to: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>

date: 18 Nov 2021, 21:37

subject: RE: n244 Form submitted in respect of the £100 Court Fee already paid to HMCTS for Appeal on E35YM660

mailed-by: justice.gov.uk

Signed by: justice.gov.uk

security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more

: Important according to Google magic.

Thank You for your email message which is now in the judicial email inbox. This inbox is only viewed by judiciary and court staffs do not have access to this account. This auto response confirms that the message has arrived and will be dealt with in due course.

Thank You

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


Post: Blog2_Post

07967789619

©2020 by The Conservative Libertarian Society. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page