vinod bansal
30 January 2009 at 19:56
Sir
whether police can lodge a FIR against already expired person who commit an offence of cheating when he was alive.
vijay tomar
29 January 2009 at 20:21
my query is that if all the male members including husband and two sons of any family be convicted under section 307 and 325 of IPC in a dispute arising out from a property dispute for a period of 5year R.I. along with fine, Can the wife's severe illness(ventricular tachycardia) be a fit reason for bail of husband under section 389 cr.p.c if yes than please suggest some citations regarding that. Its urgent.
vinod bansal
29 January 2009 at 18:17
Sir
My friend is complainant in a state (FIR)case u/ss 363/366 A/376 IPC. He want to tender/exhibit some documents (in original & some are xerox copies) on file in his evidence or at any stage of trial,but public prosecutor who is always incharge of a crl case is not helping him due to reason best known to him,what procedure my friend have to adopt.Plz help
Thanks
Lokesh Kumar V
29 January 2009 at 00:56
can the proceeding before the protection officer be quashed or stayed by the court? which court can quash or stay the proceeding?
Jayadhar V.
28 January 2009 at 22:27
I was having a chitty in Kerala State Financial Enterprises (Govt.of Kerala)(KSFE). The chitty prized to me and the prized amount Rs.70000/-deposited in FD on 18-04-2002 at the branch of 3rd accused, for three years, ie. up to 18-04-2005, at the rate 9.5%. The FD was kept as surety for the future payments of the chitty installments. As per Complainant’s request the monthly interest of the FD Rs.554/- has been adjusted in the monthly installments of the chitty.
Due to the negligence, from the part of KSFE, continued allowing the interest of the FD, Rs.554/- for the months May 05, June 05, July 05, Aug 05, even after the expiry of the date of maturity of the FD and an amount Rs.2216/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred sixteen only) (Rs.554/-) was adjusted excess in the Chitty installments for the months June 05, July 05, August 05 and September 05.
When the mistake was observed, the KSFE deliberately renewed the FD with retrospective effect, that is from the date 18-04-2005, at a lesser interest rate 6.5%, for a term of another three years with out Complainant’s consent and intentionally adjusted the said excess interest amount from the interest of the renewed FD without giving a notice even. In the name of recouping the excess interest already adjusted, they had also deducted Rs.84/- from my Savings Account, without my consent and without giving a notice to me. I was remitting full chitty installments in cash, from the month Oct. 2005 onwards without allowing any interest adjustments in it.
The KSFE defended her action by saying that the FD was under surety to their chitty and denied to alter their actions already taken from their side. So, the Complainant was forced to lift the lien on the FD, and surrendered it on 13-03-2006 for payment with a request to treat it as an unrenewed matured FD as on 18-04-2005. On surrendering such unrenewed FD, the 2nd accused should have been allowed the permissible savings interest 5.5% for the period 18-04-2005 to 12-03-2006, as per their own provisions. But my request was refused and treated the FD as a renewed FD and subjected for a pre mature closure and allowed diminished rate of interest 4.5% for the aforesaid period.
While making payment to the surrendered FD, the KSFE has given a lesser amount Rs.68986/-, under the pretext of excess interest adjustments and diminished rate of interest. Even if, the FD was subjected for a diminished rate and the adjustment of the excess interest are made from the amount, I was eligible to get more amount than Rs.68986/-. The 2nd accused had recovered more amount than Rs.2216/-, the excess amount supposed to be adjusted. The KSFE conveniently ignored the fact that Rs.84/- was also deducted from the sugama savings account of mine for the purpose. When I pointed out this error the KSFE claimed that their calculation was absolutely correct and the dues to be adjusted from the FD was Rs.3790/-.
The matter was taken before the Hon’ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF), Kollam, vide CC.No.128/2006. With a view to win the case by any means, the KSFE filed false affidavit before the Hon’ble CDRF, Kollam stating that I was not paying the full chitty instalment. This affirmation was absolutely false, as I was remitting full chitty installments in cash in the chitty from the month October 2005 onwards and as such there was only Rs.2216/- dues required to be settled/adjusted. There was no dispute/default in the payment of the said chitty installments from the 1st installment till date other than the excess interest adjustment made in the chitty during the months June 05, July 05, August 05 and September 05. For this I have original receipt for the payment of monthly installment. But the KSFE has filed a false affidavit before the Hon’ble CDRF, Kollam, claiming Rs.3790/- (instead of Rs.2216/-) was required to be realized from the disputed FD as it was already credited in the chitty installments from the month 05/2005 to 02/2006.
The
vinod bansal
28 January 2009 at 21:29
Sir
sec.3/4/5/6 of immoral trafficink act is bailable or non-bailable.
vinod bansal
27 January 2009 at 20:05
Sir
what is evidentary value of news published in news paper without examing editor or reporter in a criminal case ,plz provide citation if available...Thanks
Legal_Query
27 January 2009 at 15:29
Sir,
What are your comments regarding the recent judgment of the S.C. in the matter of
Harman Electronics(P)Ltd & Othrs
Versus
National Panasonic India Ltd.
Dated 12/12/08.
How is it going to effect the cases pertaining to 138 N.I.Act.
Thnks & Rgds
tamilarasibabu
27 January 2009 at 13:35
I need any High COurt /Supreme Court judgement in context of accused should not take the defense of summoning IT returns filed by the complainant necessary to prove whether the said amount is shown in the Income Tax returns(petition filed under Section 243)
In most of the 138 -NI Act this tactis used by the accused side simply to drag the proceedings.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
domestic violence Act
Plz anyone suggest me citation of any highcourt or supreme court in favour of Respondents i.e. Dever & Father in law .Thanks