Member (Account Deleted)
21 August 2009 at 22:08
S.304A of IPC reads - "Whoever causs the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act....."
Suppose the sentance would have been, "Whoever causes the death of any person by any rash or negliggent act...". Would the meaning differ?
Does the use of the word "doing" in the section has any significance
Is there a difference in meaning of the two sentance mentioned in the query. One with the word "doing" and the other without the word "doing".
According to me both the sentance make sense. If both the sentance are making the same sense, then is not the word "doing" in the first sentance redundant?
According to me though both the sentance make sense, they may not be meaning the same. If that is so what is the difference in the meaning?
Somnath mukherjee
21 August 2009 at 21:24
whether the hearing of mainteneace u/s section 12 can be done without filling the domestic incedent roport. Please give the relevant case laws.
Juwairiya
21 August 2009 at 21:21
I did like to know all the abbreviations that are being used at the Civil and High Court during the presentation of the case..e.g O.P, O.S etc. Thanks
Juwairiya
21 August 2009 at 21:18
What is the process and rules that are to be followed for an Advocate Commissioner?
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
21 August 2009 at 21:04
Can learned members of LCI can help me by providing details about bar-at-law, requiste qualifications, how to become bar-at-law, web site address if any etc.
Ranganath
21 August 2009 at 20:55
Ld counsels,
Is it possible to obtain stay while the petition to quash is admitted.
Is it required to file 2 separate petitions or can it be done in a single petition.
Pls clarify
AJIT KAWATKAR
21 August 2009 at 17:49
with reference to the news mentioned here below,can any body provide full text?
Declaration to acquire land must within one year of notification: SC
21 Aug 2009, 0259 hrs IST, PTI
Print EMail Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has to mandatorily issue a “declaration” for acquiring public land within a year after
the “preliminary notification” had been issued as otherwise the acquisition proceedings would become illegal. Upholding the appeal filed by Vijay Narayan Thatte and certain other aggrieved land owners of Maharashtra, the apex court said if the statute prescribes certain rules and prohibitions, then the same have to be complied with.
A bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and Asok Kumar Ganguly quashed the acquisition proceedings launched by Maharashtra government on the ground that the declaration proceedings as mandated under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not followed by the government.
Under section 4 of the Act, the government has to first issue a “preliminary notification” informing the public about its proposal to acquire the public land in question. Thereafter, under section 6 of the Act, the government has to issue a separate “declaration” about its intent to acquire the land. But under section 6, it is clearly stated that such a declaration must be mandatorily made within a year of the issuance of preliminary notification.
In this case, the Maharashtra government first issued the preliminary notification on August 29, 2002, and thereafter the declaration under section 6 on October 30, 2006, more than four years after the preliminary notification.
The aggrieved land holders challenged the declaration but the Bombay High Court rejected their plea following which they appealed in the apex court.
Shah Trupti
21 August 2009 at 17:48
Dear Sir,
I want to ask you about Limited Liability Partnership Act and What is Limited Liability Partnership? Pls give me all the details on this topic as soon as possible.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
s.398 & 398 CRPC
A Complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
Does a revision lie u/s 398 only? Is a revision u/s 397 not maintainable?
Is it correct that u/s 398 Cr.P.C. Revisional court can only order inquiry and cannot exercise any other Revisional powers?
Is it correct that for exercising powers u/s 397 Cr.P.C. original records have to be mandatorly called for from the lower court? Does not the Revisional court have power to rely upon copies produced by the parties?