LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SUBHASH SHARMA   30 August 2009 at 21:22

SUMMON VS ACCUSED

ONE OF MY CLIENT HAS PRINTING PRESS AT SHAHDARA HAS RECEIVED A SUMMON OF CRIMINAL/FAUJDARI SECTION 61 FROM AMITABH RAWAT D.J.S. METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE ( MUNICIPAL)-01, KARKARDOOMA, DLEHI.

IT HAS BEEN MENTINOED THAT, YOUR PRESENCE IN COURT IS MENDATORY IN THE OFFENCE OF 416(41). YOU HAVE TO PRESENT AT THE ABOVE COURT EITHER YOURSELF OR WITH YOUR ADVOCATE AS IT IS REQUIRED.

KINDLY SUGGEST WHAT TO DO

SUBHASH SHARMA
ADVOCATE
M-9891338895

monika   30 August 2009 at 21:20

trustee

can a person be trustee of two or more charitable , educational trusts/ and can a same person be chairman of two trusts

Rajneesh Madhok   30 August 2009 at 20:08

Put behind bars under Public Representative Act

False case registered and the person kept in illegal confinement REGISTERED CASE UNDER SECTION 107/151.THIS TIME ARRESTED WITH NO OFFENCE.

PREVIOUSLY THE ACCUSED HAD BEEN PENALIZED UNDER PULIC REPRESENTATIVE ACT IN 2007.
Sir,
Cops of Punjab Police detained a person and kept him in confinement. The matter was reported to quite a number of authorities The case was that a person Viz A had helped the old ladies to cast their vote in the last assembly elections held in the year of 2007 by providing conveyance up to the polling booth. In that case the case had been registered against him and him was penalized for Rs. 1,000/-. The case is over.

Now we come to the point. In this parliamentary elections. The said person A became the victim of Punjab Police. The police keep on harassing him, keep on putting him in illegal confinement. The procedure of harassment did not come to end.

The victim (offender in the name of Punjab Police) reported the matter vide E-mails, Speed post to different authorities from Punjab police officials, President of India, Vice President of India, Chief Secretary and all the concerned officials of Ministry of Home Affairs. But in vain.

One day in early hours A was picked up from his house with police force and again kept in confinement. The police replied to the query filed under RTI act that the reasons of taking actions are as under.

PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONCHANDIGARHComplaint No: 8084/9/2009 Present : Complainant Kulwinder Ram with Shri Rajneesh Madhok Report dated 21.8.2009 from SSP Kapurthala has been received through A.D.G.P/IVC-Cum-Human Rights, wherein the allegations of the complainant have been refuted and found false. It is reported that during the Lok Sabha Elections in 2009 there were instructions from the Election Commission that preventive action be taken against all the Bad Chracter persons and those against whom cases were registered during the last elections. Since case FIR No. 29 dated 13.2.2007 was registered against complainant Kulwinder Ram at PS Sadar, Phagwara, during the last elections, he was arrested and produced before the SDM while taking action under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. A copy of this order along with a copy of the said report be sent to the complainant for filing the rejoinder by the next date, failing which the complaint would be finally disposed of in accordance with law. Adjourned to 13.11.2009. Date: 24.8.2009 Sd/-“SONI” Justice Baldev Singh Member Now the points to be considered:1. Sec. 107/151 is regarding MINOR DISPUTE of two parties. In this case the convict who had been put behind bars twice and has to get bail has not made any offence. In the last assembly elections he had helped the old ladies of the village to caste their vote by providing transportation in his car. In this offence he had been convicted and had been fined for Rs 1,000 in the 1997. Whether he became law offender and there is a great problem if he scot free during elections and there will be the law and order maintenance problem. 2. Sec 144 is applicable on Law and order problems. Why the person put behind bars and placed in lock up and still the police department says that it is according to the instructions by the Election commission. REPLY OF PUNJAB POLICE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPLAINANT From Senior Supdtt. Of Police, 24/8/2009 Kapurthala, To Registrar, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh !No. : 1770-P Dated 21-8-09 Sub Regarding: Shri Rajneesh Madhok, Nehru Park, resident of Gali No. 2, Railway

K muthukumaran   30 August 2009 at 19:39

brief me about TORT

Please breif me about Law of TORT

Rajadiraja   30 August 2009 at 19:13

false Case under DV act for maintenance.

Sir,
The woman to whom I was married (Aug.2002) in good faith and not knowing that she was married earlier, took divorce by mutual consent from her first husband (in Dec 2002) 6 months after her marriage with me. I came to know of this in the hospital when a child was born after one year (in Dec.2003). Because I enquired about this, she has not come back to my house and I was forced to file a case for nullity of marriage. After a full dressed trial, the family court decreed the marriage as null and void giving child visiting rights to the father (in Feb 2007). I have paid interim maintenance during the family court proceedings of Rs.4000/- p.m till the date of judgement; which was also not justified and I did not go on appeal for it.
She is keeping the child with her and not allowing me to even see it since birth. Whenever I ask for visiting the child, she and her parents use abusive language and ill treat me and say that the child cannot be seen. As the child will be affected if I take any action, and in good faith that the child should not be separated from mother, I have not made further attempts to see the child nor taken any legal or police action to enforce the visiting rights. She says that she will commit suicide if I do so.
At the same time, thereafter in order to harass me and extract money, she filed a false case during july 2007 misusing the newly enacted Domestic Violence act, 2007 which came into force from Oct.2006, through the local women’s commission, invoking all sections and making false allegations and claiming exhorbitant maintenance and lumpsum amount for her and the child invoking all the sections in the act- economic abuse, right to shared accommodation, etc. Then I was employed as Bank officer and last year I have taken VRS and am now jobless, living with my pension. This I have not informed the court as they may ask me to pay from the terminal benefits that I received- which is my sweat and blood of 26 yrs. The magistrate court without any trial simply awarded maintenance of Rs.8000/- p.m and thereafter I had to go to the high court for quashing the magistrate court order, for which the HC directed me to refer to the sessions court. Accordingly, on my appeal a stay was granted by sessions court on the magistrate court order and I have prayed for setting aside the false DV case filed by her on the grounds that the lower court has given a judgement without giving me any opportunity to adduce evidence and looking into facts. They have submitted various citations of the Supreme court where maintenance is awarded even if the wife has committed bigamy and the husband is drawing only pension.
Please advise me how the sessions court is likely to view the case. Arguments are over and the case is posted for judgement orders.
There is no law to protect men from the atrocities women commit on men and therefore, I am totally shattered.

I have not filed a case for custody of the child (now 6 years)since I may be asked to pay interim maintenance for the child and since I could not able to see the child or befriend the child by visiting it, the custody may not be given to me though the father is the natural guardian. ButI am willing to take custody of the child and take care on my own.Pl. advise.
Rajashekar.
email: virgo5274@yahoo.in

Thyagarajan   30 August 2009 at 18:52

Adjurnment

A respondent had filed a wakalath in favor of an advocate and the Judge had given a date for filing a counter. On that day the Judge did not turn up However the case was called by the bench clerk. The respondent advocate was neither present nor any one filed the counter. Next hearing date was given . I had given a petition that the delay in filing the counter be not condoned just because the judge did not tern up. However one court staff told he was advised by the advocate early before the case was called that the counter was not ready. If the counter was not ready should not the advocate file a petition for another date?

Thyagarajan   30 August 2009 at 18:48

Adjurnment

A respondant had filed a wakalath in favor of an advocate and the Judge had given a date for filing a counter. On that day the Judge did not turn up However the case was called by the bench clerk. The respondant advocate was neither present nor any one filed the counter. Next hearing date was given . I had given a petition that the delay in filing the counter be not condoned just because the judge did not tern up.

Kumar Abhay   30 August 2009 at 18:44

Payment Of Back Wages

I had resigned from union bank of india as a clerk/cashier in 1992 from Ujiar in Ballia district (U.P.) and withdrew my resignation in 1993, but bank was not ready to consider my withdrawl stating that they have not yet finalised my resignation. I went to Allahabad High COurt and Court directed bank in 1999 to reinstate me in same designation but with no back wages. I joined bank at Ghosi, District Mau (U.P.) as a clerk/cashier and filed a special appeal in Allahabad High Court for back wages. Double bench has opined that back wages should be given but we are in favor that applicant coverd by Indutrial TRibunal should raise dispute for it and claim his dues. In the meantime I took transfer to Ludhiana. I filed a case for back wages in CIT, Chandigarh under article 23-2-C.In 2006 became assistant manager. In 2008,Judge of CIT told me that the case should not be under 23-2-c but I should have raise the dispute first. He told me to withdraw the case and raise the dispute. I withdrew the case but now I want to know how I should raise the dispute and claim my back wages. Please help me.

Vineeth   30 August 2009 at 15:27

Cancellation of Marriage certificate

Hi My name is vineeth,three years back i was in love with a girl, after that we got breakup, Now to my shock she showed a marraiage certificate saying that we both are married

In that certificate my address and her adress are not existing at all, but she has registered it with by 10th and birth certificate as proof (as said by her), I didnt beleive this intially but the
Marraige is registered and i could see the entry in one of the goverment site also, Orginal certificate is with that girl and she is not willing to give divorce on mutual concert

Please advice is there any option to file a fraudlent case so that I can free from her

pkm   30 August 2009 at 14:59

Negotiable Instrument act

In K.K. Ahuja Vs V.K. Vora & Anr. Hon’ble Supreme Court had given decision on July 06, 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. act. The judgment is reproducing below. Hon’ble court has defined vicarious liability under section 141 sub sections (1) & (2).In the para 6 of the judgment, as per section 141 (2) signatory of the cheque is liable though he may not be Director of the company. He may be an employee of the company performing his duties. The decision is quite elaborative. In my opinion the hon’ble court has failed to clarify on one aspect viz. what will be the position of an employee if after issuance of cheque, the Managing Director or Senior Authority instructs the bank to “Stop Payment” the cheque.

The basic question is whether employee is liable under section 138 on cheque signed by him on behalf
of the company, when the said cheque is instructed for “Stop Payment” by the Managing Director or the Senior Authority of the company after issuance.

If the answer is in affirmative, whether this is not against the natural justice to an employee. Because
for the act of senior authority a junior employee is liable & the senior employee is exempted under the section 138 of N.I.act. If junior employee is liable along with Managing Director whether this is not a channel through which another case like “ satyam” can be created. Whether industrial growth of India will not hamper if employee do not sign the cheque ?

I will be happy if expert opinion is given on the above point. The said judgment is as follows ;


Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1130-31 OF 2003


K.K. Ahuja ... Appellant
Vs.
V.K. Vora & Anr. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.


The question as to who can be said to be persons "in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the business of the company" referred to in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave by a complainant.

2. The appellant filed two complaints (Crl. Comp.No.58/2001 and59/2001) in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against M/s.Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. (`the Company' for short) and eight others under section 138 of the Act. The first complaint was in regard to dishonour of five cheques (each for Rs.5,00,000/-, all dated 28.2.2001). The second complaint was in regard to dishonour of three cheques (for Rs.3 lakhs, 3 lakhs and 10 lakhs dated 31.10.2000, 30.11.2000 and 20.12.2000 respectively). The cheques were alleged to have been drawn in favour of the appellant's proprietary concern (M/s Delhi Paints & Oil Traders) by the company represented by its Chairman. In the said complaints, the appellant had impleaded nine persons as accused, namely, the company (A-1), its Chairman (A-2), four Directors (A-3 to A-6) as also its Vice-President (Finance), General Manager and Deputy General Manager (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively). In the complaint the complainant averred that "at the time of the commission of offence, accused 2 to 9 were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused No.1" and that therefore they were deemed to be guilty of offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also alleged that respondents 2 to 9 were directly and actively involved in the financial dealings of the company and that the accused had failed to make payment of the cheques which were dishonoured. In the pre-summoning evidence, the appellant reiterated that accused 2 to 9 were responsible for the conduct of d