top of page
Search

RE: Confusing error in Master's Directions 2018/PI/11721

Writer's picture: shanpanigrahi3000shanpanigrahi3000

RE: Confusing error in Master's Directions 2018/PI/11721

Inbox


from: Civil Appeals - Registry <civilappeals.registry@justice.gov.uk>

to: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>

date: 10 Dec 2021, 09:53

subject: RE: Confusing error in Master's Directions 2018/PI/11721

mailed-by: justice.gov.uk

Signed by: justice.gov.uk

security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more

: Important mainly because it was sent directly to you


Good Morning


Your email has been referred to a Master at the Court of Appeal who has given the following directions.


“You have been advised that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order of DJ Lightman dated 21 June 2021. Unless you wish to appeal a different order and file a new appellant’s notice with supporting documentation, no further action will be taken in this court”.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service logo

Mr Mo Chowdhury

Registry Manager

Civil Appeals Office, Room E307| HMCTS | Royal Courts of Justice| London| WC2A 2LL

Phone: 0207 947 6915

gov.uk/hmcts

Coronavirus (COVID-19): courts and tribunals planning and preparation

Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you


From: Shantanu Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com]

Sent: 27 November 2021 21:31

To: Civil Appeals - Registry

Cc: Ed M.; Central London DJSKEL; registry@supremecourt.uk; registry@jcpc.uk; speakersoffice@parliament.uk

Subject: FW: Confusing error in Master's Directions 2018/PI/11721


To

Senior Master

The Court of Appeal


Dear Judge or Master


1. Further to this matter, the full Particulars of Claim are now at last fully available to me following years of investigation as outlined in the email I have had to send the Magistrate at Medway Magistrates Court this morning- see toNorthKentMagistratesCourt(PoliceHarassment)27Nov2021,docs, particularly in light of the absence of effective directions or Judgment or Order by the County Court at Central London to the following revised n244 Form submitted by me as the Claimant on the 18th of November 2021.


2. I have extracted the contents of this n244 Form here together with that of the relevant Court order to make it legible for you but have also included them as attachments to this email for evidence purposes together with additional skeleton argument relating to the recusal process to be considered by Your Honour as advised by my reinstated legal representatives Cherie and Ed Mulhouse: ToForzKhan18Nov2021.docs, The correspondence with the Home Office Passport Agency is also attached: FrHOPassportOffice23Nov2021.docx.


3. Kindly advise me how this Appeal of Claim E35YM660 should now progress to its just conclusions.


Yours sincerely


Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane

Wigmore

Gillingham

Kent ME8 0SL

Tel: 07967789619


Forwarded:

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

n244(Recuse Judge Parfitt)18Nov2021.pdf

Download PDF • 437KB

(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 :

Download DOCX • 15KB (attached)


(c) CentralLondonCountyCourtOrderonE35YM660dated19January2021_receivedbyClaimantfirstat9.27amon22mARCH2021.9pdf

CentralLondonCountyCourtOrderonE35YM660dated19January2021_receivedbyClaimantfirstat9

.27amo

Download 27AMO • 56KB


Contents of the Order Appealed under recusal znd additional materials relating to the contents of the Jugment:

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).


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.

...


[Message clipped] View entire message

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


Post: Blog2_Post

07967789619

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

bottom of page