sanjaygarg796@gmail.com
10 September 2009 at 19:13
Sir,
In the year 2005 a criminal complaint was filed under PNDT Act against the dealer who sold out one Ultra sound Machine to a person on the basis of documents produced by that doctor in which he claimed that he had already applied for registraton and also appointed a Competent Doctor. later on it was found that the person who purchased the Machine not a doctor and he obtained the machine on the basis of forged documet. A criminal complaint was filed by the CMo against the doctor as well as sellor of the machine . But on the day of filling of complaint there was no notification in his favour. whether complaint is maintainable?riven
chandranil S Belvlakar
09 September 2009 at 16:33
Dear Friends
Can a non advocate ( ordinary person) represent in court for an on behalf of accused in other words as an attorney.as the constitution has given right to be represented for himself.
please provide with case laws
riven
Abhishek
07 September 2009 at 23:58
i have to prepare a moot court on the topic.does right to life include right to die?
for that i have to prepare a slp so that it should be admitted...i am favouring that ridht to die should be included under art21riven
anusha
05 September 2009 at 23:21
is state domicile reservation in educational institutes valid???
the other party's contention is that " indian constitution is not having any feature which supports the state domicile".
mkm
05 September 2009 at 10:16
i want your help regarding this moot problem.......
Intra –Moot Court Problem
Mr.Sudhakaran is the son of Mr.Raghunandan, Managing Director of Biocon Pharmaceutical Industries which is having the turn over of 200 crores per annum and having its registered office at Cochin. Mr.Sudhakaran met with an accident on 18th August, 2009 at 10 am while travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Swift on the Trivendrum and Cochin Highway. He sustained severe intestinal damage and contusion of the Liver as well as ancillary injuries including two broken ribs, dislocation of the lower jaw, two broken fingers and a broken wrist. He was taken to the Apollo Hospital in Trivendrum at around 12 noon where the doctors advised Mr.Raghunandan to take his son to Mayot Hospital in Chennai which is the only multi speciality hospital available in India to deal with the special cases like Mr.Sudhakaran’s. They also advised Mr.Raghunandan that his son has to undergo operation within twenty four hours else, his son will suffer paralysis and may succum.
In pursuance of that, Mr.Raghunandan called Mayot Hospital, Chennai and the operation was fixed at 2 pm on 19th August, 2009. The doctors at Apollo hospital, Trivendrum informed Mr.Raghunandan that his son has to travel with artificial life support system. Mr.Raghunandan immediately contacted Mr.Avinash, the agent of Kingfisher Airlines at Trivendrum for booking the flight tickets by explaining the condition of his son.
Mr.Avinash booked the tickets for Mr.Raghunandan in Kingfisher Airlines from Trivendrum to Chennai via Bangalore transit ticket which scheduled to take off at 4pm on 18th August, 2009 and also informed him about the arrangements he made with the Kingfisher Airlines for carrying on the life saving machine till Bangalore and mentioned that the further arrangements in the connecting flight shall be made by the Kingfisher Airliness personnel.
The Kingfisher Airlines is an Airline operating with in the airspace of the republic of India having its registered office at Commerce House, Fort, Mumbai. Mr.Raghunandan reached the airport along with his son who is with life supporting equipment by 3pm on 18th August, 2009. At 3.30pm only he saw that the ticket contains a clause 2.2 stating that “the bearer of this ticket certifies that he/she is in a fit condition to fly and is not suffering from any health problem which may be a hindrance to his travel”. Mr.Raghunandan along with his son boarded the flight at 4pm on 18th August, 2009. Exactly at 5.30pm it reached the Bangalore airport where Mr.Raghunandan was asked to wait for the Jet Airlines flight which is scheduled to take off at 7pm on 18th August, 2009. Around 6.45pm the Jet Airlines officials informed Mr.Raghunandan that as per Cl.8 of the memorandum of understanding between the Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Airlines, “all the passengers flying from Trivendrum to Chennai via Bangalore will be regularly boarded in the Jet Airlines and all the norms and conditions of the Jet Airlines will be applicable to those passengers”. Further the officials informed that as per terms and conditions in Cl.8 “the bearer of this certifies that he/she is in a fit condition to fly and is not suffering from any health problem which may be a hindrance to his travel”. So, they can’t board his son into the Jet Airlines flight.
Mr.Raghunandan pleaded with the Jet Airlines authorities to take note of the seriousness of his son and requested them to allow their travel. He also pleaded for the life of his son by mentioning that they have already travelled from Trivendrum to Bangalore by the Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Airlines is having a contractual obligation to carry them to Chennai and also briefed about that arrangements made at Trivendrum Airport by Mr.Avinash and the promise that he made they can travel along with life supporting machine in the Jet Airlines also. Inspite of all the plea by Mr.Raghunandan, the officials refused to board hi
pavan
04 September 2009 at 18:46
Kindly let me know the total number of amendments till 2009 to our Indian constitution.
Pramod Pawar
04 September 2009 at 09:00
Meanwhile mr.Jaswant and Yashwant made a statement about dicision .Is it not the breach of trust or contract or contrary to sworn in while to be minister.I am willing to file PIL at Aurangabad Highcourt,maharashtra.Weather petition will be maintainable?
Rajneesh Madhok
02 September 2009 at 18:08
RTI APPLICATION REPLIED BY PUTTING BACK DATE BY PIO ON FILING APPEAL TO FAA
I filed an RTI application on 13th July 2009, which had been delivered to the CPIO on 15.07.09. Any how we add five days in the date of delivery that will come out to be 18th July 2009. On getting no reply from the PIO, the First Appeal had been made to FAA on 19.08.09.
On 31.08.09 I received the reply by an official of the concerned department not mentioning his designation. He signed the reply as For Sr. Divl. Comml Manager, *****Name of Town. The concerned official is not PIO or FAA according to the website.
The PIO played the game by sending reply dated 18.08.09 which I received on 31.08.09. The reply made by ordinary pos. No seal on the envelope has been put by postal department. Neither at the place the envelope had been posted nor the place of delivery of document. The Postal stamps affixed at the back of the envelope has no seal.
Now the question is that.
1. Whether my First appeal that has been made on 19th Aug will be considered or not. Though I have documentary evidence of posting.
2. Whether I will have to file second appeal once again as I am not satisfied with the reply sent by the concerned official.
3. Should I make complaint to CIC.
4. How can I prove that the information that I received actually on 31st Aug 2009.
5. The PIO has sent reply on OIGS envelope. Whether we should make the enquiry of posting of that letter with evidence.
6. Our postal department is also funny. It does not put stamp.
7. Now the point is the proof of delivery.
8. What will be the intention of the CPIO to send reply after due date and putting back date on the replied letter.
Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
IF ANNUAL BUDGET IS NOT CONSIDERED & APPROVED
11.09.2009
DEAR SIRS,
OURS IS LARGE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY IN HAVING 264 MEMBERS. WE ARE COVERED BY THE WBCS ACT, 1983 AND WBCS RULES, 1987. EVERY THREE YEARS WE HAVE A NEW BOARD COMPRISING OF SIX DIRECTORS AND DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BY GENERAL MEMBERS. THE LAST ELECTION OF DIRECTORS WAS HELD ON 13.07.2008.
DURING CONDUCTION OF THE LATEST AGM ON 06.09.2009 (WITH PERMISSION OF DRCS) THE PERSONS WHO LOST THE LAST ELECTION IN 2008 ALONGWITH SOME OTHER MEMBERS DID NOT ALLOW THE SECRETARY TO READ OUT THE SECRETARY'S REPORT AND SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE BUDGET. AS OUR BUILDING (14 NOS.) ARE NEARING 16 YEARS OLD AND SINCE GETTING ENTRY, NO MAJOR REPIR HAS EVER BEEN CARRIED OUT, SO THE PRESENT BORAD HAS KEPT A PROPOSAL FOR MAJOR REPAIRING AND HAS ALSO INCLUDED THE PROPOSED COST OF REPAIR IN THE BUDGET TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY GENERAL MEMBERS.
THOUGH IN THE WBCS ACTS, 1983 IT IS SAID THAT 'IN CASE THE BOARD FAILS TO PREPARE AND PRESENT THE ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AGM THEN THE GENERAL MEMBER TEHMSELVES WILL PREPARE A BUDGET AND APPROVE IT.
UNFORTUNATELEY NOWHERE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ACTS NAD RULES AND IS SILENT ON THE MATTER THAT 'WHAT WILL AHPPEN IF IN CASE A BUDGET (WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED YEARLY EXPENDITURES AS WELL COST OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FOR MAJOR REPAIR )PREPARED BY THE BOARD IS NOT CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY'?
THE YEARLY PROPOSED BUDGET IS MORE OR LESS SAME OF LAST YEAR, DULY APPROVED IN THE LAST AGM.
KINDLY LET ME KNOW WHAT TO BE DONE IF IN CASE THE BUDGET IS NOT APPROIVED. REQUEST ALSO IF THERE ARE ANY CASE LAWS ON SUCH ISSUE.
SHALL BE GRATEFUL FOR A KIND AND EARLY REPLY.
Sriprakash Bhattacharya, KOLKATA
bhattacharyasriprakash@gmail.com
Mobile: 91+9836310615
riven