Rohit Telang
17 September 2023 at 19:23
I took possession of a flat in a township in Pune in 2018 after paying all the dues including advance maintenance as demanded by the builder.Before taking possession I was given a No Dues pending letter from the builder.After 2 years the society was formed.After this the builder started demanding Additional maintenance for the 2 years and started sending legal notices in his letterhead threatening legal action against us.My question is has the builder got a right to demand such additional maintenace after giving No Dues pending letter and after paying in advance 2 years maintenance? What are the remedies for us if he proceeds with legal action?
Rupen-Doshi
15 September 2023 at 10:22
I have received the flat through nomination from my father. Can I nominate someone?
Rajesh Tandon
31 March 2016 at 17:46
An article on CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT U/S 13(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 was posted on the lawyer club of India in the year 2009 by Mr AEJAZ AHMED.
2. In this article following was brought out :-
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.K.Dawan AIR 1993 SC 1478 has mentioned the circumstances under which an inference can be drawn for initiating prosecution for the offences under Clause (iii) of Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. They are as follows:
i) Where the Officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty.
ii) If there is a prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
iii) If he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant.
iv) If he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
v) If he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; and
vi) If he had been actuated by a corrupt motive however small the bribe may be.
The Supreme Court further observed that they are not exhaustive and only illustrative. In this connection, it can be further considered to make use of this Clause (iii) in a wider sense whenever it is found that the evidence is not sufficient to attract the offence under clause (I) and (ii) of Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988.
Abuse has to be inferred from the following circumstances:
(a) Absence of power; (b) Exceeding jurisdiction, (c) Irrelevant consideration; (d) Leaving out relevant consideration, (e) Mixed consideration; (f) Malafide; (g) Improper performance; (h) Colourable exercise of power; (i) Non-observance of natural justice, and (j) Unreasonableness.
3. Taking clue from this article and similar reference of Union of India Vs. K.K.DawanAIR1993SC1478on http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in especially assuming that whatever reference of the Supreme Court decision has been given must be correct, I reported a matter about a public servant for investigations by CBC/CBI public police as per the CVC manual on the lines of the The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.K.Dawan AIR 1993 SC 1478 but subsequently when I could obtain the copy of the judgement through the Internet which was earlier not available, I found that nowhere in the said judgement the circumstances for drawing the inference initiating prosecution for the offences under Clause (iii) of Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 has been mentioned. In fact these are the circumstances for initiating disciplinary proceedings as per CCS rules.
4. Could some body guide me as to how experts on this forum have concluded that these are the circumstances for initiating the prosecution for the offence under clause(iii) of sec 13(1) (d) of prevention of corruption act 1988. I would be extremely grateful for an early reply from the forum, otherwise my position would be taken as quoting a wrong judgement, since in the matter of complaint there were no direct evidence of taking the bribe for the matter of corruption. However, conditions i) to v) of the said judgement are being met.
The link for downloading jugdement(12pages in PDF format) in the case of Union of India Vs. K.K.Dawan AIR1993SC1478 is https://indiankanoon.org/doc/868781/
sorry attachment of judgement in PDF was not possible.
Rajesh Tandon
04 October 2015 at 09:01
1. I am a public servant approaching this forum for the expert advice. By virtue of being public servant, Iam contemplating of lodging a complaint under the provisions of section 195(1) (a) CRPC for an offence of section 187 IPC against somebody[Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance].
2. However provisions of section 195(2) CRPC mention, quote “Where a complaint has been made by a public servant underclause(a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court ; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint.”unquote.
3. The possibility that the person against whom the complaint is being contemplated may use some kind of influence whereby the authorities to whom I am administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint. Such a possibility cannot be ruled out.
4. As such, the whole aim of bringing the guilty to book for contempt of lawful authority of the public servant gets defeated by such a parallel provision in the legislation by virtue of section 195(2) CRPC.
5. Don't you think that the authorities to whom I am administratively subordinate, if at all order withdrawal of complaint,would, by ordering the withdrawal of such complaint tantamount to committing of an offence under section 217 of IPC[Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture].
6. May I request the experts to suggest some way out in such a situation so that the guilty is brought to the book.
Rajesh Tandon
29 September 2015 at 09:04
Meaning of law for the purposes of section 166 IPC, 187 IPC, 217 IPC
1. Article 13 of the Constitution of India deals with the laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. Clause(3) to Article 13 mentions, “In this article, unless the context otherwise requires-
Now read Clause(3) to Article 13 along with sub clause (a) to Clause(3) to article 13, which mentions
(a) “ Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
2. Specific Query –
(a) Keeping in view the explanation about the law as covered under article 13 (a) of the Constitution of India, is the meaning of law restricted in context to Article 13 only ? Or similar interpretation of law is drawn by the courts for the purposes of meaning of law for the purpose of offence under section 166 IPC, 187 IPC, 217 IPC.
(b) If there are any rules framed by the government after passing of the act or merely the government rules, departmental policies in the absence of the act to set out the various responsibilities of (various departments and the appointments and designations under the said departments) whereby one omits to provide assistance as per the Departmental policy, would this constitute an offence under section 187 IPC?
(c) Similarly, would disobeying the directions of law ( ie. not a law passed by the legislature but departmental policies, rules and regulations) would constitute an offence under section 166 IPC and 217 IPC ?
Rajesh Tandon
27 September 2015 at 21:32
Experts. Request let me know the difference between Settlement Agreement and Arbitration Agreement. Thanks.
Rajesh Tandon
27 September 2015 at 21:18
May I request experts to please let me know the difference between Interim award & Interim Orders in arbitration proceedings. If possible, please explain in detail. Searched the entire net but could not find an answer. Thanks.
Rajesh Tandon
27 September 2015 at 21:16
May I request experts to please let me know the difference between Interim award & Interim Orders in arbitration proceedings. If possible, please explain in detail. Searched the entire net but could not find an answer. Thanks.
Rajesh Tandon
15 May 2015 at 08:10
1.It is a query regarding filing of the written statement. I'm a government servant. Recently in the land case related to our department, I had to file written statement. I have filed a written statement. But I was not aware that an affidavit also has to be filed with the written statement. The special executive magistrate is presently on leave. The bench clerk had received written statement and has sent a copy of the same to the petitioner (I believe). As it is we got the process issued by special executive magistrate 20 days late whereby we missed submitting the written statement in time whereby the special executive magistrate had already taken the decision against us.
2. It is only today that I came to know that by amendment of 2002, there is a period of 30 days from receipt of the summons wherein the written statement has to be filed and while filing the written statement day before yesterday, we are still well within this period of 30 days but my worry is that I did not file an affidavit with the written statement and this may give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise the plea that written statement has been filed without affidavit and probably he may request the court to reject such a statement and yet preparing his defence further.
3. This was a case of imposition of section 144 CRPC.
4. Subsequently, yesterday I have filed another application under clause (5) of section 144 CR PC for rescinding the said order passed by special executive magistrate based on the facts and circumstances of the case but that also without affidavit. The requirement of filing the affidavit with the written statement came to my knowledge today morning only through one of the Query answered by somebody on this forum.
5. What are the options available to me. Kindly suggest.
a) Firstly, Can an affidavit be given at this stage separately . If so can a combined affidavit be given for the written statement as well as the fresh application filed under clause (5) of section 144 CR PC for rescinding the said order or to separate affidavits to be given.
b) Secondly, is it that both the written statement as well as the fresh application as mentioned above to be withdrawn and resubmitted with the affidavit.
c) What consequences could be there is the option b) is excerised especially when the bench clerk told me that the copy of written statement submitted by me has been already sent to the petitioner.
d) Do I submit the reasons in the affidavit for not filing initially with the written statement and the fresh application as to my ignorance about the same.
e) Could somebody throw a light as to what could with the format of such affidavit for written statement as well as fresh application.
6. An early reply will be highly appreciated due to the peculiar turn of the event in the case.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Warrant for non repayment
Hello Sir,
I have taken loan from an NBFC bank i was on time but due to some financial loss i wasn't able to make the payment for 3-4 month then they send me one summon but i was not able to present on the given date now as i can check on the ecourt website So Case stage shows as E/R of Warrant. What does this mean is it bailable or not?
What to do next?
I live in delhi but case file in kolkata
I am really in a panic situation not able to find any other why, Please Please Please help me out.